i 

1 

1 

J 

q! 

.5 

5^ 

Ic 

1 

v.^ 

^ 

'^ 

1) 
-a 

(0 

^ 

^^^^ 

"tZ 

[-  J 

ha 

-C 

.s 

CL 

'^ 

^ 

^ 

• 

fe 

^ 

1  1 

O 

0) 

c 

1 

s 

^  i 

O 

3 

1 

!zi 

M 

E 
m 
CO 

^ 

(^ 

s 

^ 

! 

^ 

-o 

5 

c 

8 

■^ 

1 

^        i 

'^ 

qI 

s 

Jo 

i 

'^ 

.<;e 

'H 

/<5/ 

is-' 

C  1 

/ 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/infantbaptismOOmi 


Entered    according  to  Act    of  Congress,  in   the  year   1872,  by 

SOUTHWESTERN  BOOK  &  PUBLISHING  CO., 
In  the  Office  of  the    Librarian    of  Congress,    at    Washington. 


INTRODUCTION.    ^' 


'^v*^^^^ 


There  are  two  extreme  views  with  respect  to  the 
Church,  each  of  which  is  false  and  mischievous.  In 
one  view,  the  Church  has  official  custody  of  the  grace 
of  God,  which  it  dispenses  by  authority,  through  sac- 
ramental channels  of  communication.  In  the  other, 
the  Church  is  made  nothing  of,  or  next  to  nothing. 
Connection  with  it  is  held  to  be  of  little  or  no  value. 
Its  ordinances  and  means  of  grace  are  slighted  as 
nothing  worth. 

It  is  true,  beyond  all  question,  that  a  man's  rela- 
tions with  his  Maker  are  to  be  determined  by  himself. 
He  can  confer  no  "  power  of  attorney "  upon  the 
Church  to  attend  to  the  business  of  salvation  for  him. 
He  must  come  to  God  in  his  own  person.  In  the 
vital  process  of  repentance  and  faith,  and  in  the  mys- 
tery of  the  new  birth,  no  proxy  can  be  employed. 
Yet  it  is  also  true  that  God  has  ordained  in  the 
Church  many  efficient  aids,  many  means  of  grace, 
through  which  the  earnest  penitent,  and  the  more 
advanced  believer,  are  alike  strengthened  and  helped 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

forward  in  the  Christian  race.  The  fellowship  of 
saints  and  the  ordinances  of  religion  quicken  the  spir- 
itual perception  and  sensibilities,  and  encourage  and 
strengthen  faith. 

The  mere  fact  of  membership  in  the  Church  exerts 
a  most  wholesome  effect  on  the  mind  and  heart.  Of 
course,  like  all  other  aids  and  means  of  grace,  it  loses 
its  effect  upon  the  conscious  and  deliberate  hypocrite, 
for  all  the  means  are,  to  us,  what  we  make  them  by 
our  manner  of  using  them.  Perversely  and  hypocrit- 
ically used,  they  harden.  But  when  used  in  the  can- 
dor and  simplicity  of  a  genuine  faith  they  are  an 
invaluable  agency  in  the  development  of  the  Chris- 
tian life.  Not  that  the  Church  confers  salvation 
officially  through  them ;  but  their  use,  in  keeping  with 
the  laws  of  our  being,  quickens  faith,  and  commits  us 
openly  and  formally  to  a  Christian  course.  God 
makes  them  a  blessing  through  a  process  altogether 
rational.  In  the  same  way  the  very  fact  of  member- 
ship in  the  Church  gives  strength  to  our  purposes. 
It  separates  us  openly  and  formally  from  the  world. 
It  classifies  us  with  the  people  of  God.  It  brings 
home  to  us  our  high  privileges,  and  puts  us  into  a 
category  altogether  favorable  to  the  service  of  God. 
It  enforces  upon  our  attention  all  the  motives  of  piety. 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  small  consequence  what  rela- 
tion our  children  shall  sustain  to  the  Church;  whether 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

they  shall  come  upon  the  arena  of  that  contest  in 
which  eternal  life  is  lost  or  won,  in  their  place  in  the 
militant  host,  or  enter  it  single-handed  and  without 
support. 

The  whole  question  of  the  relation  of  children  to 
the  Church  is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  infant  bap- 
tism. This  book  is  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the 
various  questions  involved  in  this  doctrine.  The 
matter  has  appeared  in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  "  St. 
Louis  Christian  Advocate."  These  articles  have  been 
read  with  great  interest  and  beneficial  effect.  The 
author,  though  a  young  man,  has  already  attained  to 
eminence  in  controversial  writing.  It  requires  no 
sanguine  temperament  to  hope  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  much  good  by  the  publication  of  this 
book. 

There  is  a  demand  for  it.  Several  large  denomina- 
tions of  Christians  in  our  country  are  strangely  hereti- 
cal upon  this  subject.  The  popular  mind  has,  to  a 
considerable  extent,  been  infected  by  false  ideas. 
What  with  the  heresy  of  baptismal  regeneration  on 
one  side,  and  that  of  anti-pedobaptism  on  the  other, 
there  is  need  for  a  widespread  presentation  of  the 
"truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus."  Controversy  for  its  own 
sake  is  undesirable,  but  when  the  interests  of  truth 
demand  it  it  is  not  to  be  shunned.  The  incidental 
ill-feeUng  that  may  arise  is  to  be  regretted,  but  we 


^  INTRODUCTION. 

must  "contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints." 

There  is  much  shameful  neglect  of  children  by  the 
Church  and  by  Christian  parents.  The  best  possible 
results  of  Christian  training  are  rarely  realized,  for  the 
reason  that  the  training  itself  is  imperfect.  A  thor- 
ough course  of  training,  where  there  is  a  due  blending 
of  authority,  affection  and  Christian  teaching  on  the 
part  of  parents,  and  the  proper  care  and  influence  on 
the  part  of  pastors,  with  prayer  and  faith,  would  breed 
up  a  style  of  Christian  now  rarely  seen  among  us. 

This  training,  to  answer  to  the  divine  ideal,  must 
be  based  on  baptism  and  the  covenant  therein  entered 
into  by  the  parent  for  the  child.  On  what  a  vantage 
ground  is  that  child  placed  who  has  been  brought 
into  covenant  with  God  by  its  parents. 

The  parental  relation  is  greatly  disparaged  and 
degraded,  so  far,  at  least,  as  religion  is  concerned,  by 
those  who  oppose  infant  baptism.  They  deny  the 
authority  of  the  parent  to  make  a  covenant  for  his 
child.  How  totally  they  misconceive  the  nature  of 
the  parental  relation.  The  fact  is,  that  during  infancy 
the  parent  does  everything  for  the  child,  and  is  obliged 
to  this  by  the  very  facts  in  the  case.  He  must 
believe  for  the  child  and  act  for  him  in  every  interest, 
even  the  most  vital.  The  child  is  in  his  hands, 
incapable  of  acting  for  itself,  and  he  7nust  act  for  it^or 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

let  it  perish.  The  responsibility  is  on  him,  and  he 
cannot  avoid  it.  What  food  it  shall  eat,  what  atmos- 
phere it  shall  live  in,  what  medicine  it  shall  take,  he 
must  determine.  Nor  does  he  make  a  title-deed  in 
which  he  does  not  covena?it  for  his  chihi  as  well  as  for 
himself.  If  you  say  a  man  cannot  enter  into  covenant 
for  his  child,  you  contradict  nature  itself,  and  the  cus- 
toms of  mankind  from  the  earliest  ages. 

If  a  man  may  not  bind  his  child  by  a  covenant  in 
the  matter  of  religion^  it  is  an  exception  to  the  author- 
ity he  holds  in  all  civil  relations.  If  this  be  so,  an 
advantage  is  lost  to  the  child  in  this  highest  of  all 
interests^  that  is  secured  to  it  in  all  other  cases.  The 
mature  business  judg?ne?it  of  the  father  may  be  made 
available  in  the  temporal  interests  of  the  child — not  in 
the  way  of  advice  merely,  but  of  actual  covenant 
transactions  which  are  to  inure  to  his  benefit.  But  as 
to  his  soul,  he  may  be  bound  by  no  stipulations,  so 
that  the  intelligent  and  mature  faith  of  the  father  are 
not  available  in  any  such  substantial  way  for  his  spir- 
itual wealth  and  safety.  The  very  instance  in  which 
we  would  expect  a  gracious  God  to  secure  to  the 
child  the  highest  advantages  of  this  relation,  accord- 
ing to  this  unnatural  theory,  is  the  instance  in  which 
he  is  to  reap  no  benefit  from  it  whatever. 

Where  the  filial  feeling  is  properly  evolved  there  is 
the  deepest  sense  of  obligation  and  honor  in  respect 


0  INTRODUCTION. 

to  the  fulfillment  of  any  covenant  made  by  the  parent. 
Let  this  feeling  be  properly  fostered  in  the  child,  and 
then  let  him  be  trained  to  understand  the  force  of  the 
obligations  that  rest  upon  him  from  the  baptismal 
covenant,  entered  into  on  his  behalf  by  his  parents, 
and  you  have  a  class  of  motives  to  a  Christian  life  of 
the  most  commanding  character.  These  motives  are 
totally  wanting  in  the  case  of  children  unbaptized. 

My  neighbor  says,  "I  will  not  bind  my  child  in  the 
affairs  of  his  soul.  He  shall  h^  free.  He  shall  cJioose 
for  himself.'"     This  is  quite  taking  to  the  popular  ear. 

But  I  say,  my  child  shall  7iot  be  free  t©  go  wrong, 
either  in  religion  or  anything  else,  if  I  can  help  it — 
and  more  emphatically  in  religion  than  in  anything 
else.  I  will  bind  him  by  commands,  by  covenants, 
and  by  all  the  most  sacred  obligations,  to  serve  God. 

1  will  environ  him  with  motives  that  he  shall  feel  it 
to  be  unnatural  and  monstrous  for  him  to  disregard. 
I  will  make  it  in  the  highest  degree  difficult  and  pain- 
ful for  him  to  go  to  hell. 

To  this  view  of  the  case  the  Church  mus*:  be 
brought  There  is  much  need  of  light  amongst  us 
upon  this  subject.  Our  own  Church  needs  toning  up 
greatly  Thousands  in  the  Church  use  little  or  no 
authority  to  turn  the  young,  unpracliced  feet  of  their 
children  from  the  way  of  death.  Many  Methodists 
are  incurring  heavy  guilt  in  this  very  thing. 


I^TRODUCTION.  9 

The  recent  agitation  of  this  subject  in  Kentucky 
and  Missouri  has  done  good — great  good.  Let  it  be 
followed  up  by  the  dissemination  of  a  sound  litera- 
ture, and  by  thorough  pastoral  instruction.  This 
book  appears  at  a  good  time,  and  will  be  gladly 
received  by  all  intelligent  and  earnest-minded  parents. 

May  It  have  a  wide  circulation,  and  bring  many  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth  on  this  particular  point. 
Let  it  be  understood,  moreover,  that  the  duty  of  offer- 
ing our  children  to  God  in  baptism  is  not  the  whole 
truth.  The  value  of  baptism  to  a  child  is  found  in 
the  fact  that  it  is  the  starting  point  in  a  course  of 
Christian  training.  Its  chief  value  is  in  its  relation 
to  the  subsequent  training.  Its  significance  is  in  this 
relation.  If  a  thorough  Christian  training  does  not 
follow,  then  the  value  and  significance  of  the  baptism 
are  never  realized. 

There  is  need  of  a  great  awakening  of  the  parental 
conscience. 

E.  M.  MARVIN. 

St.  Louis,  March  26,  1872. 


INFANT  BAPTli#;;  ^>     J 


ARTI CLE     I  . 

At  the  request  of  very  many  friends,  I  propose  to 
write  a  series  of  papers  on  Infant  Baptism,  setting 
forth  the  argument  as  I  understand  it.  The  impor- 
tance of  this  subject  in  itself,  independent  of  the  vast 
difference  which  it  creates  between  the  rehgious 
denominations  of  this  country,  makes  it  worthy  of  a 
patient  and  prayerful  consideration.  The  papers 
which  I  propose  to  write  on  the  subject  shall  be 
short  and  strictly  ad  rem — epitomizing  and  sifting 
down  the  matter  of  the  argument  so  as  to  enable  the 
popular  mind  to  appreciate  the  central  points  of  the 
argument. 

I  shall  occupy  the  present  paper  with  a  statement 
of  my  Methods  of  Proof,  and  thus  indicate  in  advance 
the  line  of  argument  to  be  developed.  The  numer- 
ous works  which  I  have  examined  on  this  subject 
are  very  faulty  in  this  regard.  No  definite  aim  seems 
to  be  before  the  writers.  The  reader  finds  himself, 
consequently,  beating  about  in  a  vast  sea  of  mate- 


12  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

rials,  uncertain  as  to  what  port  he  is  to  reach.  Some 
writers  begin  at  one  end  of  the  argument,  others  at 
the  other  end,  and  still  others  in  the  middle.  Some 
open  with  the  objections  to  infant  baptism,  others  with 
objections  to  the  theory  that  opposes  infant  baptism. 
The  result  of  this  rudderless,  compassless  effort  to  navi- 
gate this  sea  of  facts  is,  that  the  reader  soon  loses 
sight  of  the  author  and  interest  in  his  subject,  and 
then  lays  down  the  book,  indifferent  whether  he  goes 
down  amid  the  icebergs  of  the  Arctic  seas  or  strands 
upon  Cimmerian  shores. 

We  would  avoid  this  evil.  Therefore  we  shall  state 
clearly  how — by  what  method — wc  propose  to  vindi- 
cate what  we  believe  to  be  taught  in  and  authorized 
by  the  Holy  Scriptures  on  the  matter  before  us. 

There  are  three  methods  of  proving  a  proposition, 
e.  g.:  (i)  A  command;  (2)  An  authoritative  example; 
(3)  An  induction.  We  shall  employ  these  methods 
of  proof  in  this  investigation.  We,  therefore,  pro- 
ceed to  an  explanation  of  these  methods  of  proof, 
and  to  indicate  how  we  shall  apply  them. 

(i)  ^  command.  Thus  :  '•  Do  this  or  that."  This 
is  our  first  method.  We  propose  to  show  a  cominand 
for  infant  baptism.  Now,  to  determine  to  whom  a 
command  extends  it  is  not  necessary  to  fix  or  deter- 
mine the  age,  or  sex,  or  name  of  the  party  contem- 
plated.    The  only  thing  necessary  to  be  determined 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  13 

in  order  to  ascertain  whether  the  command  extends  to 
this,  that,  or  the  ottier  one,  is  to  determine  whether 
they  belong  to  iJie  class  contemplated  in  the  com- 
mand. For  exami>le,  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the  com- 
mand is,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me."  Here 
neither  age^  sex,  nor  fiame  is  contemplated,  but  all  who 
*'  remember "  Christ  are  included  in  the  command, 
"  Do  this."  Now,  it  is  only  by  the  recognition  of  this 
rule  that  we  can  justify  the  giving  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per to  women.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  examine 
this  matter  more  at  length  hereafter.  Let  it,  there- 
fore, suffice  at  this  point  to  say  that  at  the  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  none  but  men  were  present ;  no 
instance  is  on  record  in  which  it  is  stated  that  a 
woman  partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  in  all 
statements  with  reference  to  that  institution,  such  as 
Acts  XX.  7,  I  Cor.  xi.  28,  words  are  used  which  defi- 
nitely distinguish  the  male  from  the  female.  Upon 
what  authority,  then,  do  we  give  the  Supper  to 
women  ?  Where  is  the  command  ?  We  can  only 
answer,  and  the  answer  is  sufficient,  they  are  included 
in  the  class — namely,  of  those  who  ''remember" 
Christ,  to  which  class  the  command,  "  Do  this,"  is 
given.  Therefore  they  are  entitled  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  for  it  is  an  axiom  that  "  whatsoever  is  com- 
manded of  a  class  may  be  commanded  of  each  indi- 
vidual in  that  class."     We  shall  apply  this  method  of 


14  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

proof  to  infant  baptism,  thus:  In  Matt,  xxviii.  19-20, 
we  are  commanded,  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  (or 
disciple)  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
&c.  Now,  the  only  thing  to  be  determined  is,  do 
infants  belong  to  the  class  here  contemplated  in  the 
command  ?  The  class  is  "^//nations."  Are  infants 
any  part  of  that  class  ?  If  so,  then  the  command  to 
baptize  them  is  as  imperative  as  it  is  to  baptize  any 
others  that  belong  to  that  class.  We  shall  not  antici- 
pate here  the  usual  objections  which  anti-Pedobap- 
tists  raise  at  this  point.  That  shall  be  attended  to 
in  due  time.  We  simply  indicate  now  our  Une  of 
proof. 

(2)  An  autho7itaiive  example.  E.  g:,  has  any 
proper  authority  done  the  thing  in  question  ?  Have 
those  who  have  been  set  forth  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church  as  an  "  ensample  "  in  practice  for  the  Church 
done  this  thing  ?  The  force  of  this  as  a  method  of 
proof  can  not  be  well  over-estimated.  Some  of  the 
most  solemn  and  oft-repeated  ordinances  of  religion 
have  been  set  aside,  and  new  ones  substituted  in  their 
room  by  an  authoritative  example  in  the  absence  of 
any  command  or  enactment  in  the  case.  Take  but 
one  instance.  No  ordinance  was  more  solemn  or 
more  oft-repeated  than  the  holy  Sabbath — the  fixing 
ot  the  seventh  day  as  a  holy  day.     When  God  finished 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  1 5 

the  work  of  creation,  He  "  blessed  the  seventh  day 
and  sanctified  it"  (Gen.  ii.  3),  and  when  the  Deca- 
logue, the  basis  of  all  moral  law,  was  given  at  binai, 
He  embodied  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  in  that ;  and  on 
through  succeeding  ages  the  blessings  of  heaven  were 
poured  upon  the  man  who  "remembered  the  Sabbath 
day  to  keep  it  holy,"  and  terrible  curses  fell  upon  him 
who  secularized  or  despised  that  day.  No  enact- 
ment stands  upon  the  holy  page  for  the  abrogation  of 
that  law  of  the  Sabbath,  and  no  command  was  ever 
given  by  Christ  to  substitute  another  day  in  its  room. 
And  yet  the  Church,  for  eighteen  centuries,  has  secu- 
larized the  seventh  day,  doing  all  manner  of  work 
therein,  and  in  the  stead  of  the  seventh  day  it  has 
"  remembered  "  the  first  day  "  to  keep  it  holy."  Now, 
upon  what  authonty  does  the  Church  do  this  ?  That 
there  is  no  command  for  it,  all  agree;  that  it  sets 
aside  the  day  which  God  appointed  from  the  begin- 
ning, is  perfectly  plain;  and  that  this  thing,  in  the 
absence  of  any  command,  is  done  with  "  a  conscience 
void  of  offense  toward  God  and  man  "  by  the  holiest 
men  the  Church  has  ever  had,  is  equally  true.  Where, 
then,  is  the  authority  ?  We  answer,  it  is  to  be  found 
only  in  the  exa?nple  of  the  apostles  and  of  the  Church 
in  its  purest  ages.  Their  example  is  esteemed  by  us 
as  of  sufficient  authority  to  justify  us  in  no  longer 
remembering  "  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy,"  and 


l6  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

in  keeping  a  day  which,  numerically,  is  as  far  from 
the  seventh  as  is  possible — iJie  first. 

Now,  we  shall  apply  this  rule  (an  authoritative 
example)  to  the  argument  on  infant  baptism,  thus: 
About  o?ie-tJiird  of  the  instances  of  baptism  in  the 
New  Testament — a  history  embracing  more  than 
thirty  years  of  apostolic  labor — are  instances  of  house- 
hold, or-  family  baptisms,  and  those  family  baptisms 
expressed  by  a  word  which  narrows  the  signification 
of  household  down  to  the  father,  mother  and  children^ 
which  make  up  a  family.  Here  is  an  authoritative 
example.  We  shall  also  see  that  the  Church,  from 
the  apostles  on  through  the  purest  ages  of  its  exist- 
ence, practiced  infant  baptism  with  an  unanimity 
never  exceeded  in  any  item  of  faith  and  practice 
which  the  Church  has  held.  If,  therefore,  the  exam- 
ple of  the  apostles  and  of  the  Church  in  the  first  cen- 
turies can  authorize  the  setting  aside  of  the  Sabbath 
day,  and  the  substitution  therefor  of  the  first  day^ 
their  example  can  authorize  infant  baptism, 

(3)  An  induction.  This  is  a  legitimate  method  of 
proof,  and  by  it  a  demonstration  may  be  as  infallibly 
made  as  by  any  other  known  process  of  argumenta- 
tion. By  induction  we  mean,  that  process  of  argu- 
mentation in  which  we  ascend  from  the  parts  to  the 
whole,  and  from  general  analogy  or  special  presump- 
tions in  the  case  form  conclusions.     This  is  Bacon's 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  I7 

method  in  science.  It  is  that  method  of  proot  upon 
which  many  of  the  most  sacred  rights  and  most 
momentous  interests  of  this  Hfe  depend.  Take,  for 
example,  the  rights  or  basis  of  property.  Law  does 
not  fix  the  right  or  basis  of  property,  though,  as  Way- 
land  says,  "the  existence  and  progress  of  society, 
nay,  the  very  existence  of  our  race,  depends  upon 
the  acknowledgment  of  this  right."  Now,  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  rights  of  property  is  obtained  simply  by 
an  induction.  We  make  an  induction  (i)  of  natural 
conscience,  and  (2)  of  general  consequences,  and  thus 
determine  the  question  as  to  the  right  of  property. 

I  shall  apply  this  method  of  proof,  thus  :  I  shall 
take  the  cove?iant  of  grace,  the  great  organic  law  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  and  the  relaiio7i  of  children  to 
Christ's  kingdom  ("  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God"), 
and  by  an  induction  of  these  establish  the  rightful- 
ness of  infant  baptism. 

I  have  thus  indicated  the  line  of  argumentation, 
the  methods  of  proof,  which  I  propose  to  follow.  I 
may  not  confine  myself  to  the  exact  order  in  which  I 
have  stated  these  rules,  but  they  shall  be  the  head- 
lands toward  which  I  will  constantly  steer,  the  paths 
in  which  I  shall  walk.  The  reader,  therefore,  who 
may  desire  information  upon  this  important  subject, 
may  now  follow  us,  intelligently  and  satisfactorily,  to 
the  conclusions  which  we  propose  to  reach. 
2 


15  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

ARTICLE     II. 

HISTORIC  EVIDENCE — THE   PRACTICE  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Whence  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  ?  This  is  a 
perfectly  natural  question.  Is  it  an  innovation  ?  If 
so,  it  had  a  beginning  somewhere  and  by  some  one. 
But  whe?i,  where,  and  by  whotn  ?  Is  it  true  that  the 
opposers  of  infant  baptism  charge  that  it  is  an  inno- 
vation, and  yet  utterly  fail,  with  the  history  of  the 
whole  Church  before  them,  to  fix  when,  where,  and 
by  whom  so  great  an  innov^ation  came  in?  This  fail- 
ure is  not  without  significance.  If  it  were  an  innova- 
tion, history  would  have  recorded  the  name  of  the 
innovator,  where  he  lived,  and  when  he  began  the 
practice ;  and  those  who  have  succeeded  in  cultivat- 
ing in  themselves  and  in  their  followers  so  strange  a 
disgust  for  the  practice,  would  not  have  been  slow  in 
announcing  the  record  to  the  world.  Their  failure  to 
produce  reliable  history  to  sustain  their  assumption, 
that  infant  baptism  is  an  innovation,  is  the  more 
remarkable  when  we  consider  the  fact  that  the 
fathers — the  reliable  writers  of  the  first  centuries  of 
the  Christian  era — have  transmitted  to  us  full  and 
minute  accounts  of  the  origin  of  the  various  heresies 
and  innovations  which  arose  from  time  to  time. 
Thus,  TertuUian,  of  the  second  century,  has  trans- 
mitted a  list  of  the  innovations  of  his  time;  Irenaeus. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


19 


who  was  born  about  A.  D.  120,  wrote  a  volume  of 
nearly  500  pages  agamst  heresies^  which  has  come 
down  to  us;  Hippolytus,  who  was  born  about  A.  D. 
200,  wrote  ten  books  against  "All  Heresies."  In 
these  and  similar  works  the  innovations  which  crept 
into  the  Church  are  carefully  catalogued.  Hence,  it 
is  not  a  difficult  task  to  give  the  name,  and  the  place, 
and  the  time  of  each  innovator.  For  example: 
Extreme  Unctio?i  was  introduced  by  the  Marcosians 
in  the  second  half  of  the  second  century;  penance 
came  in  about  A.  D.  225;  exofcism,  insinuation, 
touching  the  ear  ot  the  baptized,  and  the  sign  of  the 
cross,  &:c.,  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  (See 
Schaff.,  Hist.  Chr.  Church,  vol.  2,  p.  486).  Leo  the 
Great  was  the  first  Pope  (Ibid.,  p.  316-17).  The 
Mass  was  introduced  by  Gregory  in  the  sixth  cen- 
tury; the  Collyridians  introduced  the  worship  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  in  the  close  of  the  fourth  century ;  image 
worship  and  purgatory  came  in  about  the  same  time. 
It  is  needless  to  extend  this  list,  as  it  might  be  done 
almost  ad  i?ijinitiim.  These  instances  are  sufficient  to 
show  the  fidelity  of  history  in  preserving  a  record  of 
innovations. 

Now,  the  introduction  of  all  these  strange  notions 
and  practices  excited  fierce  controversies,  and  often 
civil  commotions,  which  lasted  for  many  years.  Is  it, 
therefore,  possible  that  infant  baptism,  one  of  the 


20  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

greatest  and  gravest  innovations,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  its  opponents,  could  have  come  into  the 
Church  without  exciting  a  single  notice  from  any  one 
of  the  many  writers  in  the  Church,  and  without 
awakening  one  moment's  controversy  on  the  subject? 
Never  was  there  a  more  impossible  assumption ! 
Where  were  all  the  Baptists  and  Campbellites  of 
those  days  ?  Is  it  not  marvelous  that  one  of  them 
did  not  preach  a  sermon  or  write  a  pamphlet 
against  what  they  now  spend  half  their  time  in 
opposing  ? 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  while  the  silence 
of  the  grave  hangs  upon  the  opposition  to  infant  bap- 
tism in  the  first  centuries,  the  testimony  of  the  writers 
of  those  centuries  to  the  existence  and  apostolic 
authority  of  the  practice  is  unbroken  and  unequivo- 
cal. By  showing  thus  that  the  Church  in  her  purest 
period,  and  the  Apostles  and  their  colaborers,  prac- 
ticed infant  baptism,  we  will  produce  an  authoritative 
example,  which  is  one  of  the  legitimate  methods  of 
proof  indicated  in  our  opening  letter. 

I  shall  now  ask  the  reader  to  start  with  me  at  about 
the  opening  of  the  fifth  century,  and  then,  step  by 
step,  guided  by  true  and  reliable  history,  we  will 
move  back  to  the  Apostles'  time,  and  trace  the  exist- 
ence of  infant  baptism  right  within  the  apostolic  age. 
We  will  then  take  up  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  and 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  21 

see  that  it  was  harmonious  with  the  practice  of  the 
Church  after  their  day. 

Sozomen,  A.  D.  443.  His  Ecclesiastical  History, 
from  which  I  quote,  is  a  continuation,  as  he  tells  us, 
of  his  history  of  events  from  the  Ascension  of  the 
Lord  to  the  deposition  of  Licinius,  A.  D.  324.  Here- 
is  a  history,  then,  written  in  the  fifth  century,  and 
extending  back  to  the  xA.scension.  The  source  of 
information  from  which  Sozomen  drew  his  facts  were, 
Clemens  of  Rome,  Hegesippus,  Africanus  the  histo- 
rian, Eusebius,  etc.  On  page  202,  speaking  of  Julian 
the  Apostate,  he  says:  "  The  extravagant  attachment 
which  Julian  evinced  toward  the  Pagan  rites  was 
extremely  displeasing  to  the  Christians,  more  espe- 
cially on  account  of  his  having  been  himself  formerly 
a  Christian.  He  was  born  of  pious  parents,  had 
been  baptized  in  infancy  according  to  the  custom  of 
the  Church,  and  had  been  brought  up  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  under  the  guidance  of 
priests  and  bishops  " 

Here  is  a  historian  of  vast  information  and  of 
undoubted  veracity,  declaring  that  infant  baptism 
was  "  the  custom  of  the  Church,"  and  that  declara- 
tion made  in  a  history  that  goes  back  from  the  fifth 
century  to  the  Ascension ! 

Now,  on  the  assumption  that  the  position  of  anti- 
Paedobaptists  is  true — namely,  that  infant  baptism  is 


22  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

an  innovation,  then  is  it  not  amazing  that  a  Church 
historian,  who  Hved  within  300  years  of  the  Apostles, 
and  who  had  read  up  the  whole  literature  of  the 
Church  down  to  his  time,  should,  in  a  history  that 
goes  back  to  the  Ascension,  affirm  infant  baptism  to 
be  "  the  custom  of  the  Church  ?"  And  is  it  not 
stranger  still,  if  possible,  that  no  good  Baptist  or 
Campbellite  historian  of  Sozomen's  time  ever  contra- 
dicted his  statement  and  sent  the  facts  in  the  case 
down  to  us  ?  There  are  volumes  of  significance  in 
this. 

Augustine,  A.  D.  2>^^-  ^^  was  one  of  the  most 
eminent  men  for  learning  the  Church  ever  produced, 
and  had  read,  according  to  his  showing,  the  whole 
literature  of  the  Church  up  to  his  times.  Speaking  of 
infant  baptism,  he  says :  "  Which  the  whole  body  of 
the  Church  holds,  as  delivered  to  them,  in  the  case  ot 
little  infants  baptized;  who  certainly  can  not  yet 
believe  with  the  heart  to  righteousness,  or  confess 
with  the  mouth  to  salvation,  as  the  thief  could ;  nay, 
but  by  their  crying  and  noise  while  the  sacrament  is 
administering,  they  disturb  the  holy  mysteries ;  and 
yet  no  Christian  man  will  say  they  are  baptized  to  no 
purpose.  And  if  any  one  do  ask  for  divine  authority 
in  this  matter,  though  that  which  the  whole  Church 
practices,  and  which  has  not  been  instituted  by  Coun- 
cils, but  was  ever  in  use,  is  very  reasonably  believed 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  2$ 

to  be  no  other  than  a  thing  delivered  (or  ordered)  by 
authority  of  the  Apostles;  yet  we  may  besides  take  a 
true  estimate,  how  much  the  sacrament  of  baptism 
does  avail  infants  by  the  circumcision  which  God's 
former  people  received"  (Wall,  vol.  i,  p.  158).  Here 
it  will  be  observed  that  St.  Augustine  agrees  perfectly 
with  the  historian  Sozomen.  They  both  declare 
infant  baptism  to  be  the  universal  custom  of  the 
Church.  Augustine  says,  Quod  universa  te?iet  eccle- 
sia — "  which  the  whole  Church  holds."  Now,  con- 
sider that  he  lived  within  about  280  years  of  the 
Apostle  John,  and  how  amazing  is  the  assumption 
that  a  dangerous  innovation  could  in  that  time  have 
become  the  universal  practice  and  faith  of  the  Church  ! 
And  here  was  a  bishop  referring  it  to  the  authority  of 
the  Apostles,  and  yet  no  one  knew  who  introduced  it, 
or  when,  or  where  ! 

Pelagws,  a  British  monk  of  exalted  reputation,  was 
contemporary  with  Augustine.  His  views  concern- 
ing depravity  and  original  sin  were  opposed  by  Au- 
gustine with  great  vehemence,  and  as  warmly  defended 
by  Pelagius.  In  the  progress  of  the  controversy 
Augustine  charged  that  Pelagius'  views  made  the 
baptism  of  infants  meaningless  and  useless.  Augus- 
tine had  fallen  into  the  grave  error  of  baptismal 
regeneration — baptism  even  for  the  cleansing  away  of 
original  sin.     Pelagius   denied   that   there  is  such  a 


24  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

thing  as  "  original  sin."  Hence  infants,  not  having 
any  actual  guilt  from  personal  transgression,  Augus- 
tine argued  that  Pelagius'  opinions  made  it  useless  to 
baptize  them.  It  would  have  been  greatly  to  the 
advantage  of  Pelagius,  therefore,  to  show  that  infants 
should  not  be  baptized ;  that  it  rested  on  no  divine 
authority;  was  an  innovation,  &c.,  &c.  He  was  a 
man  of  great  learning,  and  had  access  to  the  history 
of  the  Church.  If  it  had  been  possible,  therefore,  to 
show  infant  baptism  to  be  an  innovation,  here  was 
the  man,  and  this  was  the  time  to  do  it.  Instead  of 
attempting  such  a  thing,  however,  Pelagius  said : 
"  Men  slander  me  as  if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of 
baptism  to  infants,  or  did  promise  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  to  some  persons  without  the  redemption  of 
Christ;  which  is  a  thing  that  I  never  heard,  no  not 
even  any  wicked  heretic,  say.  For  who  is  there  so 
ignorant  of  that  which  is  read  in  the  gospel,  as  (I 
need  not  say  to  affirm  this,  but)  in  any  heedless  way 
to  say  such  a  thing,  or  even  have  such  a  thought  ? 
In  a  word,  who  can  be  so  impious  as  to  hinder  infants 
from  being  baptized  and  born  again  in  Christ,  and  so 
make  them  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  &c. 
(Wall,  I,  279.)  A  controversialist  having  the  sagacity 
and  learning  which  Pelagius  possessed  would  have 
ransacked  the  entire  literature  of  the  past,  and  have 
paraded  every  suspicion  that  could  have  been  found 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  ^5 

against  the  rightfulness  of  infant  baptism,  had  there 
existed  a  suspicion  in  his  day  that  it  was  not  author- 
ized by  the  Bible.  It  was  vital  to  his  theory  to  dis- 
prove its  divine  authority.  And  yet  he  declares  he 
never  heard  their  right  to  baptism  questioned ! 

Chrysostom,  A.  D.  380.  This  brings  us  within  280 
years  of  the  Apostles.  He,  speaking  of  baptism  as 
Christian  circumcision,  says:  "  But  our  circumcision, 
I  mean  the  grace  of  baptism,  gives  cure  without  pain, 
and  procures  to  us  a  thousand  benefits,  and  fills  us 
with  the  grace  of  the  Spirit ;  and  it  has  no  determ- 
inate time  as  that  had  [i.  <?.,  that  circumcision  in  the 
flesh  had] ;  but  one  that  is  in  the  very  beginning  of 
his  age,  or  one  that  is  in  the  middle  of  it,  or  one  that 
is  in  his  old  age,  may  receive  this  circumcision  made 
without  hands."  Again  :  "  And  yet  some  think  that 
the  heavenly  grace  consists  only  in  forgiveness  of  sins  ; 
but  I  have  reckoned  up  ten  advantages  of  it.  For 
this  cause  we  baptize  infants  also,  though  they  are  not 
defiled  with  sin;  that  there  may  be  superadded  to 
them  saintship,  righteousness,  adoption,  inheritance,  a 
brotherhood  with  Christ,  and  to  be  made  members  of 
him"  (Wall,  I,  143-145). 

This  is  a  statement  from  a  source  of  very  great 
authority.  Chrysostom  was  at  this  time  Bishop  of 
Constantinople,  the  new  capital  of  the  Roman  empire. 
His  elevation  was,  therefore,  great  in  the  Church,  and 


26  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

his  learning  profound.  He  is  not  here  arguing  the 
rightfulness  of  infant  baptism.  There  is  not  one  line  of 
controversy  on  that  point  in  the  entire  history  of  the 
first  thousand  years  of  the  Christian  era.  But  he 
speaks  ot  infant  baptism  as  a  fact  about  which  there 
was  no  doubt — ^just  as  he  speaks  of  the  Church,  the 
Lord's  Supper,  or  any  other  fact  in  Christianity. 

Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan,  A.  D.  374.  This  was 
274  years  after  the  Apostles.  He  supposed  that  the 
dividing  of  the  river  Jordan  by  Elias  was  a  type  of 
baptism,  and  says  of  baptism,  "  by  which  those 
infants  that  are  baptized  are  reformed  back  again 
from  wickedness  [or  a  wicked  state]  to  the  primitive 
state  of  their  nature."  Wall,  commenting  on  this 
passage,  says  :  "  He  plainly  speaks  here  of  infants 
as  baptized  in  the  Apostles'  time,  as  well  as  in  his 
own;  and  makes  St.  John  (if  his  meaning  be  to  speak 
of  the  persons  baptized  by  him),  in  baptizing  infants 
for  the  reformation  of  their  nature  back  again  to  the 
primitive  purity  of  it,  to  resemble  Elias  in  turning 
back  the  waters  to  their  spring  head  .  .  .  He  does 
plainly  speak  of  the  baptism  of  infants  used  in  the 
Apostles'  time"  (Vol.  i,  139). 

Basil,  A.  D.  360 ;  i.  <f.,  260  years  after  the  Apostles. 
He  was  Bishop  of  Caesarea,  and  "  stands  high  among 
the  fathers  of  the  Church  as  one  of  the  most  eloquent, 
energetic,    and    spiritual    of    their   number"    (Kitto, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  2*J 

Ency.).  He  says:  "But  any  time  of  one's  life  is 
proper  for  baptism.  Be  it  day  or  night,  be  it  but  an 
hour  or  a  minute,  yet  the  most  proper  time  is  Easter," 
&c.  (Wall,  I,  131.)  He  practiced  infant  baptism 
accordingly.  Theodoret,  in  his  "  History  of  the 
Church,"  which  was  written  about  A.  D.  423,  says, 
on  page  177,  that  Basil  directed  the  child  of  the 
Emperor  Valens  to  be  baptized.  In  the  above 
extract  from  his  writings  he  declares  any  period  of 
one's  life  to  be  proper  for  baptism — even  an  hour 
after  birth. 

Gregory  Nazia?izen,  A.  D.  360 — 260  years  after 
the  Apostles.  He  was  not  baptized  in  infancy, 
because,  as  is  abundantly  evident  from  the  most 
reliable  sources,  he  was  born  before  his  father  em- 
braced Christianity.  If  there  had  been  any  doubt, 
therefore,  of  the  rightfulness  of  infant  baptism  in  his 
time,  he  would  have  availed  himself  of  it  in  order  to 
vindicate  the  memory  of  his  father,  for  whom  he 
always  expressed  great  reverence.  He  thus  expresses 
himself  with  reference  to  baptism :  "  Hast  thou  an 
infant-child  ?  Let  not  wickedness  have  the  advan- 
tage of  time;  let  him  be  sanctified  from  his  infancy; 
let  him  be  dedicated  from  his  cradle  to  [or  by]  the 
Spirit.  Thou,  as  a  faint-hearted  mother  and  of  little 
faith,  art  afraid  of  giving  him  the  seal  because  of  the 
weakness  of  nature."     He  is  here  reprimanding  any, 


28  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

who,  through  a  misapprehension  of  the  saving  effects 
of  baptism,  might  be  disposed  to  defer  it  until  late  in 
life,  or  until  the  approach  of  death.  Tertullian,  in 
the  second  century,  had  advocated  such  a  delay  in 
baptism.  Gregory,  however,  urges  the  giving  of  "  the 
seal,"  or  baptism,  "  in  infancy,"  or  "  from  the  cradle." 

Optatus^  Bishop  of  Milevi,  A.  D.  360,  calls  baptism 
in  the  name  of  Christ  "  a  garment."  and  says  :  "Oh  ! 
what  a  garment  is  this,  that  is  always  one  and  never 
renewed,  that  decently  fits  all  y.ges  and  all  shapes ! 
It  is  neither  too  big  for  infants  nor  too  little  for 
men,"  &c. 

Cypria?t,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  250;  i.  <?.,  150 
years  after  the  Apostles,  About  the  year  250  this 
bishop  presided  over  a  Council  at  Carthage  of  sixty- 
six  bishops.  A  country  bishop  by  the  name  of  Fidus 
addressed  a  letter  to  this  Council,  inquiring  whether  an 
infant  might  be  baptized  at  any  time  after  birth,  or 
whether  the  law  of  circumcision  should  be  observed, 
and  the  baptism  delayed  to  the  eighth  day.  To  this 
letter  the  Council,  through  Cyprian,  the  president, 
gave  the  following  answer :  "  But  in  respect  of  the 
case  of  infants,  which  you  say  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized within  the  second  or  third  day  after  their  birth, 
and  that  the  law  of  ancient  circumcision  should  be 
regarded,  so  that  you  think  that  one  who  is  just  born 
should    not    be   baptized    and    sanctified    within    the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  29 

eighth  day,  we  all  thought  very  differently  in  our 
Council.  For  in  this  course  which  you  thought  was  to 
be  taken,  no  one  agreed;  but  we  all  rather  judge 
that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  is  not  to  be  refused 
to  any  one  born  of  man  .  .  .  And,  therefore,  dearest 
brother,  this  was  our  opinion  in  Council :  that  by  us 
no  one  ought  to  be  hindered  from  baptism  and  from 
the  grace  of  God,  who  is  merciful  and  kind  and  lovmg 
to  all.  Which,  since  it  is  to  be  observed  and  main- 
tained in  respect  of  all,  we  think  is  to  be  even  more 
observed  in  respect  of  infants  and  newly  born  persons, 
who  on  this  very  account  deserve  more  from  our  help 
and  from  the  divine  mercy,  that  immediately,  on  the 
very  beginning  of  their  birth,  lamenting  and  weeping, 
they  do  nothing  else  but  entreat."  (Cyprian,  vol.  I. 
Epis.  lviii.)_ 

Here,  within  150  years  of  the  Apostles,  a  Council  of 
sixty-six  bishops,  representing  a  large  portion  of  the 
Church,  decide  that  no  delay  should  be  made  in  bap- 
tizing infants.  Let  it  be  observed  that  the  question 
submitted  to  this  Council  by  Fidus  was  not  concerning" 
the  rightfulness  of  infant  baptism,  but  whether  infants 
might  not  be  withheld  from  it  for  eight  days.  Fidus 
urged  that  "  the  aspect  of  an  infant  in  the  first  days 
after  its  birth  is  not  pure,  so  that  any  one  of  us  would 
still  shudder  at  kissing  it."  As,  therefore,  it  was  the 
custom  to  give  the  "  kiss  of  peace  "  to  one  when  bap- 


30  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

tized,  it  seemed  to  him  well  to  delay  baptism  until  the 
eighth  day,  in  order  that  delicacy  might  not  be 
offended  by  having  to  kiss  one  so  young.  In  support 
of  his  claim  he  urged  the  law  of  circumcision.  But 
Cyprian  and  his  sixty-five  associate  bishops  promptly 
strike  down  any  innovation  in  the  faith  and  practice 
of  the  Church  on  this  subject,  and  inform  Fidus  that 
no  *time  was  to  be  fixed  to  which  the  baptism  of 
infants  should  be  delayed.  If  the  claim  of  anti- 
Paedobaptists  be  true,  that  infant  baptism  is  an  inno- 
vation, does  not  this  Council  exhibit  the  most  astound- 
ing absurdity  ever  witnessed  ?  For  example,  they, 
with  perfect  unanimity,  enjoin  upon  Fidus  a  radical 
and  dangerous  innovation,  which  has  just  crept  in — 
one  that  is  almost  to  subvert  "  believers'  baptism  " — 
and  yet  they  are  so  scrupulous  about  innovations  as 
not  to  permit  Fidus  to  delay  baptizing  an  infant  until 
the  eighth  day!  Who  but  a  fanatic  could  believe 
such  a  thing?  The  Baptist  historian  (?!),  Orchard, 
after  miserably  mutilating  this  epistle  to  Fidus,  and 
then  trying  to  discredit  the  genuineness  of  it,  and 
having  failed  to  break  its  force,  turns  to  the  unworthy 
means  of  aspersing  the  character  of  Cyprian.  He  is 
denounced  as  "  an  ignorant  fanatic,"  "a  great  tyrant," 
as  making  his  way  to  the  bishopric  by  his  wealth,  as 
sequestering  himself  from  persecution,  &c.,  &c.  (See 
vol.  I,  pp.  75-76,  Orchard's  Hist.  Bap.)     This  is  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  3 1 

common  resort  of  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism. 
When,  as  they  invariably  do,  they  fail  in  an  appeal  to 
facts,  they  resort  to  ridicule  and  detraction.  We  are 
inclined  to  expose  this  pretended  historian,  and  make 
an  example  of  him  for  the  benefit  of  others.  As  to 
the  character  of  Cyprian,  Fox,  the  great  martyrolo- 
gist,  thus  speaks  :  "  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage, 
was  an  eminent  prelate,  and  a  pious  ornament  to  the 
Church.  His  doctrines  were  orthodox  and  pure,  his 
language  easy  and  elegant,  and  his  manners  graceful." 
(Fox's  Book  of  Martyrs,  p.  43.)  This  is  the  picture 
of  a  Christian  gentleman,  and  is  concurred  in  by  all 
whose  opinion  is  worth  having.  Instead  of  "  seques- 
tering "  himself  from  persecution,  as  Orchard  alleges, 
Cyprian  suffered  the  loss  of  all  his  estate,  which  was 
large,  in  the  Decian  persecution,  and  on  the  14th  day 
of  September,  A.  D.  258,  was  beheaded. 

*  We  hardly  know  how  to  characterize  such  conduct 
as  Orchard  is  here  guilty  of.  It  is  unworthy  of  any 
cause — even  as  bad  a  one  as  that  he  was  aiming  to 
maintain.  Orchard  also  says  that  Cyprian  "  had  no 
such  practice  as  infant  baptism  in  the  Church  at  Car- 
thage," and  that  on  receipt  of  Fidus'  letter  "  he  called 
together,  in  a  private  way,  his  brethren  in  the  vicin- 
ity, and  then  he  submitted  the  business.""  There  is  not 
a  truth  in  all  this  statement.  Let  the  reader  reperuse 
the  quotation  from  Cyprian  and  then  judge  whether 


32  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  known  in  his  Church. 
Instead  of  these  bishops  being  assembled  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  the  letter  of  Fidus,  it  is  plain  that 
they  were  assembled  upon  other  matters,  and  that  Fidus 
availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  to  address  them  as 
he  did;  and  so  far  was  this  assembly  from  being  '*  a 
private  "  collection  of  Cyprian's  "  brethren,"  that  it  is 
most  manifestly  a  regular  Council,  assembled  to  delib- 
erate upon  Church  affairs.  The  opening  sentence  in 
the  reply  to  Fidus  warrants  this  opinion.  Thus — 
"  Cyprian  and  others  of  his  colleagues  who  were  pre- 
sent in  Council,  in  number  sixty-six,  to  Fidus  their 
brother,"  &c.  I  deem  it  due  the  cause  of  truth 
to  make  this  exposure  of  the  falseness  of  a  pre- 
tended Church  history,  because  its  statements  have 
been  re-echoed  by  fifth-rate  prophets,  who  depend 
upon  such  material  for  their  inspiration. 

I  shall  resume  in  the  next  article  the  historic  argii- 
ment. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  33 


ARTICLE    III. 

HISTORIC  ARGUMENT  CONTINUED  —  TESTIMONY  OF 
ORIGEN,  TERTULLIAN,  IREN.tUS,  JUSTIN  MARTYR, 
ETC. 

We  now  resume  the  argument  from  history,  and 
proceed  to  show  that  mfant  baptism  was  practiced  by 
the  Church  in  the  apostohc  age  without  a  dissenting 
voice.  Our  last  witness  was  Cyprian  and  the  Coun- 
cil at  Carthage.  This  brought  us  within  150  years  of 
the  time  of  the  Apostles. 

Ori^en,  A.  D.  210  ;  i.e.,  no  years  after  the  Apostles. 
He  was  "the  most  learned  and  one  of  the  most  influ- 
ential of  the  Christian  Fathers.  .  .  .  His  father, 
Leonidas,  was  a  Christian,  and  suffered  martyrdom 
for  his  attachment  to  the  cause  of  Chribt,  A.  D.  202." 
(Kitto's  Bib.  Cyc.) 

Dr.  Scliaff  says  :  "  Epiphanius,  an  opponent,  states 
the  number  of  his  [Origen'sJ  works  at  six  thousand, 
which  (continues  Schaff)  is,  perhaps,  not  much  beyond 
the  mark,  if  we  include  all  his  short  tracts,  homilies, 
and  letters,  and  count  them  as  separate  volumes." 
He  was  a  man  of  profound  and  extensive  research. 
Being  born  in  the  year  185,  and  baptized  in  his  in- 
..     3 


34  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

fancy,  there  must  have  been  many  still  aUve  in  the 
Church  when  he  was  baptized  who  had  been  brought 
to  Christianity  by  the  Apostles  themselves.  When 
Origen  was  baptized  in  infancy  the  Apostle  John  had 
been  dead  only  about  twenty-five  years.  His  bap- 
tism, therefore,  takes  us  within  the  shadow  of  the 
apostoHc  age.  Let  us  now  hear  his  testimony.  He 
says  :  "  Besides  all  this,  let  it  be  considered,  what  is 
the  reason  that  whereas  the  baptism  of  the  Church  is 
given  for  forgiveness  of  sins,  infants  also  are,  by  the 
usage  of  the  Church,  ba2:)tized  -,  when,  if  there  was 
nothing  in  infants  that  wanted  forgiveness  and  mercy, 
the  grace  of  baptism  would  be  needless  to  them." 
(Wall,  I.  65.)  With  Origen's  opinion  as  to  the  de- 
sign of  baptism  we  have  nothing  to  do.  It  is  simply 
his  testimony  to  a  fact  that  we  are  concerned  about. 
He  here  asserts  that  it  was  the  "  usage  "  or  custom  of 
the  Church  to  baptize  infants.  If  this  was  not  a  fact, 
every  man  contemporary  with  Origen  could  have  con- 
tradicted it;  and  there  was  just  the  same  opportunity 
for  their  contradiction  to  reach  us  as  there  was  for  his 
statement.  But  the  fact  is  before  us,  uncontradicted, 
that  about  120  years  after  the  Apostles,  it  was  the 
"  usage  of  the  Church  to  baptize  infants.  Origen  fur- 
ther affirms :  "  For  this  also  it  was  that  the  Church 
had  from  the  Apostles  a  tradition  [or  order]  to  give 
baptism  even  to  infants."     (Ibid.,  I,  66.')     The  word 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  35 

which  Dr.  Wall  here  renders  "  tradition  or  order " 
has  not  the  evil  sense  which  now  attaches  to  ''  tradi- 
tion." The  Latin  traditionem,  which  Rufinus,  Ori- 
gen's  translator,  used  to  translate  TTapa^ooLg,  the  word 
used  by  Origen,  means  "  a  delivering  by  words,  teach- 
ing, instruction,  delivering."  (Leveretfs  Lat.  Lex,) 
So  also  the  original  word  of  Origen,  napaSoaig,  means, 
*'  In  N.  T.  meton.,  anything  orally  delivered — a  pre- 
cept, ordinance,  instruction."  iyRobinsofi's  JV.  T, 
Greek  Lex.)  Here,  then,  the  man  who  within  eighty- 
five  years  of  the  Apostles  was  himself  baptized  in  in- 
fancy, whose  father  and  grandfather  were  Christians, 
affirms  that  the  Church  had  a  "  precept "  or  "  instruc- 
tion "   from  the  Apostles  "  to  baptize  infants." 

TertuUia7i,  A.  D.  200 — 100  years  after  the  Apostles. 
It  is  proper  to  state  that  Tertullian  had  fallen  into  the 
most  grievous  errors  concerning  the  efficacy  of  the 
water  of  baptism.  He  believed  that  when  the  Spirit 
hovered  over  the  great  deep  in  the  beginning,  he  im- 
parted to  water  a  divine  element,  and  that  when  the 
body  came  in  contact  with  water  in  baptism,  it  ab- 
sorbed, in  some  mysterious  way,  this  divine  element. 
Hence,  in  his  opinion,  the  water  of  baptism  did  of  it- 
self, cleanse  away  all  pollution.  As  a  matter,  there- 
fore, of  safety,  he  advised  the  delay  of  baptism  of  all 
persons  until  the  most  dangerous  periods  of  life  were 
passed,  lest  if  they  should  fall  into  grievous  sins  after 


36  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

baptism  there  should  be  no  hope  for  them,  as  baptism 
could  not  be  readministered.  Hence,  says  he,  "  For 
no  less  cause  must  the  unwedded  also  be  deferred — in 
whom  [the  ground  of]  temptation  is  prepared,  alike  in 
such  as  never  were  wedded  by  means  of  their  maturi- 
ty, and  in  the  widowed  by  means  of  their  freedom 
[from  the  nuptial  yoke] — until  they  either  marry,  or 
else  be  more  fully  strengthened  for  [maintaining]  con- 
tinence. If  any  understand  the  weighty  import  of 
baptism,  they  will  fear  its  reception  more  than  its 
delay;  sound  faith  is  secure  of  salvation."  (De  Bap- 
tismo,  chap,  xviii.) 

This  explanation  is  necessary  to  a  proper  under- 
standing of  the  quotation  following  :  "And  so,"  says 
Tertullian,  '•  according  to  the  circumstances  and  dis- 
position, and  even  age,  of  each  individual,  the  delay 
of  baptism  is  even  preferable ;  principally,  however, 
in  the  case  of  little  children."  (De  Baptismo,  chap, 
xviii.)  He  did  not  oppose  the  rightfulness  of  infant 
baptism,  as  anti-Paedobaptists  have  frequendy  repre- 
sented him ;  he  only  did  in  their  case  what  he  did  in 
the  case  of  "the  unmarried,"  "widows,"  and  all  in 
whom  "  the  ground  of  temptation  is  prepared " — 
namely,  advised  the  delay  of  baptism  as  a  matter  of 
expediency.  Here,  then,  is  a  distinguished  writer, 
who  was  born  about  A.  D.  150,  speaking  of  infant 
baptism    as   an   existing   fact.     He   utters   no   word 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  37 

against  its  rightfulness.  He  simply  advises  its  delay, 
as  he  does  also  in  the  case  of  adults,  as  a  matter  of 
expediency.  I  can  not  refrain  from  again  exposing 
the  unchristian  conduct  of  the  opponents  of  infant 
baptism.  The  Baptist  historian,  Orchard,  fabricates 
the  following  with  reference  to  Tertullian  :  "  Tertul- 
lian  was  inquired  of  by  a  rich  lady  named  Quintilla, 
who  lived  at  Pepuza,  a  town  in  Phrygia,  whether  in- 
fants might  be  baptized  on  condition  that  they  asked 
to  be  baptized  and  produced  sponsors.  In  reply  to 
Quintilla,  Tertullian  observes,  '  That  baptism  ought 
not  to  be  administered  rashly,  the  administrators  of  it 
know.' "  (History  of  Baptists,  vol.  I,  pp.  69-70.) 
Now,  what  will  the  candid  reader  think  when,  with 
Tertullian's  works  (from  which  Orchard  pretends  to 
quote)  open  before  us,  we  assure  him  that  there  is  not 
one  word  of  truth  in  this  whole  story?  The  entire  thing 
is  a  fabrication.  The  remotest  allusion  to  such  a  story 
is  not  found  in  his  works !  Orchard's  intention  evi- 
dently was  to  create  the  impression  that  this  was  the 
first  suggestion  of  infant  baptism  made  to  Tertullian's 
mind,  and  that  he  promptly  rejected  that.  How  des- 
perate must  be  a  cause  which  throws  itself  upon  such 
expedients  for  support ! 

CUment  of  Alexjndri'X,  h..  D.  192 — 92  years  after 
the  Apostles.  He  was  a  distinguished  writer  and 
teacher  in  the  Church.     His  works  which  have  come 


38  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

down  to  US   exhibit  great  calmness   and  moderation. 
His  work  before  us,  The  Pcedagogus,  is  largely  devoted 
to  instructing  men  and  \vomen  concerning  the  gravity 
and  modesty  to  be  cultivated  in  all  the  affairs  of  life — 
e.  g.,  apparel,  ornaments,  &c.     Referring  to   the   cus- 
tom of  wearing   rings  on  the   fingers  with  seals  or  de- 
vices graven  on  them,  he  inveighs  against  the  custom 
of  putting  lascivious  pictures   and   devices  for  such 
seals,  and  advises  as  follows :     "And  let  our  seals  be 
either  a  dove   or  a  fish,  or  a  ship  scudding  before  the 
wind,  or  a  musical  lyre  which   Polycrates  used,  or  a 
ship's  anchor,  which  Seleucus  got   engraved  as  a  de- 
vice; and  if  there  be  one   fishing,  he  will  remember 
the  apostle,  and  the  children  {naLdiijdv)  drawn  out  of 
the    water."     Or,  as    Dr.  Wall    translates :     "And  if 
any  one  be   by  trade  a  fisherman,  he  will   do   well  to 
think  of  an  apostle,  and  the  children  taken  out  of  the 
water."     (Pjed.  B.  Ill,  chap,  xi.)     Wall,    who   is  re- 
ceived as  the  highest  authority  by  all  on  the  history  of 
infant  baptism,  remarks  upon  this  passage  :  "An  apos- 
tle's taking,  or  drawing,  or  lifting  a  child  out  of  the 
water,  can  not  refer  to   anything  that  I  can   think  of, 
but  the  baptizing  of  it.  And  infantejn  de  fonte?n  levare 
[to  raise  an  infant  from  the  font]  is  a  phrase  used  by 
the  ancients,  denoting  the  baptizing  of  it,  almost  as 
commonly  as  the  word  baptizing  itself"    (Wall  I,  53.) 
This,  in  Clement,  is   but  an   allusion   to  the  existing 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  39 

fact  of  infant  baptism ;  but,  as  Wall  says,  "  Such  tran- 
sient supposals  of  a  thing,  and  taking  it  for  granted, 
are  in  an  ancient  author  rather  plainer  proofs  of  its 
being  then  generally  used  or  known,  than  a  larger  in- 
sisting on  it  would  be."  Within  ninety-two  years, 
then,  ot  the  Apostles'  time,  infant  baptism  is  referred 
to  as  a  well-known  fact,  and  made  to  illustrate  other 
topics  of  religion.  But  how  could  such  references 
have  been  made  if  the  custom  did  not  prevail,  and  re- 
ceive the  sanction  of  the  Church  ?  With  reference  to 
*•  the  drawing  of  the  child  out  of  the  water,"  it  may 
be  proper  here  to  state  the  manner  of  baptizing  infants 
in  the  East,  where  customs  remain  the  same  from  age 
to  age.  The  "  Report  to  the  Board  of  Missions  of  the 
Prot.  Epis.  Ch.,  U.  S.,"  by  Rev.  Dr.  Jarvis,  says: 
"  The  priest  then  asks  the  name  of  the  child,  and  tak- 
ing him  on  his  left  arm,  and  supporting  his  feet  with 
his  right,  he  puts  him  into  the  font,  his  head  being  kept 
out  of  the  water.  Then,  with  the  hollow  of  his  hand, 
he  pours  water  upon  the  child  three  times,  baptizing 
him,"  &c.  (Chapin  Prim.,  chap.  80.)  This  is  an 
account  of  the  manner  of  baptizing  among  the  Arme- 
nians. The  same  is  also  stated  of  the  Syro- Jacobites, 
Copts  and  Abyssifiia?is,  2ind.  other  Eastern  Christians. 
An  apostle,  therefore,  "  drawing  a  child  out  of  the 
water,"  was  simply  lifting  its  feet  out  of  the  font. 
Irencdus.     Pie  was  born  about  A.  D.  120,  and  wrote 


40  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  book  from  which  we  quote  about  A.  D.  182.  He 
was  bom  within  about  twenty  years  of  the  Apostles' 
time.  He  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  a  dis- 
ciple of  the  Apostle  John.  Concerning  Polycarp, 
Irenseus  thus  speaks  :  "  Polycarp  also  was  not  only 
instructed  by  the  Apostles,  and  conversed  with  many 
who  had  seen  Christ,  but  was  also,  by  the  Apostles  in 
Asia,  appointed  Bishop  of  the  Church  in  Smyrna, 
whom  I  also  saw  in  my  early  youth,  for  he  tarried  [on 
earth]  a  very  long  time,  and  when  a  very  old  man, 
gloriously  and  most  nobly  suffering  martyrdom,  de- 
parted this  life,  having  always  taught  the  things  which 
he  had  learned  from  the  Apostles,  and  which  the 
Church  has  handed  down,  and  which  alone  are  true." 
(Ire.  B.  HI,  4.)  Schafifsays  of  Irenaeus :  "  He  en- 
joyed in  his  youth  the  instruction  of  the  venerable 
Polycarp  of  Smyrna.  Through  this  link  he  still  was 
connected  with  the  Johannean  age.  The  spirit  of  his 
preceptor  passed  over  to  him."  (His.  Chr.  chap.  I, 
488.)  Such,  therefore,  was  his  contiguity  to  the  Apos- 
tles, and  such  were  his  opportunities  tor  knowing  their 
practice,  that  whatever  he  says  upon  this  question 
should  be  received  as  conclusive.  We  quote  him  : 
"For  He  [Christ]  came  to  save  all  through  means  of 
himself — all,  I  say,  who  through  him  are  born  again 
to  God  [renascurJur  in  Deiiu{\  infants,  and  children, 
and  boys,  and  youths,  and  old  men.     He,  therefore, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  4I 

passed  through  every  age,  becoming  an  infant  for  in- 
fants, thus  sanctifying  infants ;  a  child  for  children, 
thus  sanctifying  those  who  are  of  this  age,  being  at 
the  same  time  made  to  them  an  example  of  piety, 
righteousness,  and  submission,"  Szc.  (Iren^eus  Adv. 
Haereseos,  B.  II,  chap.  xxii.  4.)  The  only  thing  to  be 
explained  in  the  phrase  "  born  again  to  God,"  or  '•'  re- 
generated to  God."  That  Irenaeus  meant  baptism  by 
regenerate,  is  true  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  in  book 
III,  chap,  xvii,  he  uses  "baptize"  and  "regenerate" 
as  interchangeable  terms.  "And  again,  giving  to  the 
disciples  the  power  of  regeneration  into  God,  he  said 
to  them,  '  Go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"' 
&c.  Regenerate  was  so  used  by  all  the  Fathers — e. 
g.,  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
&c.  Wall  and  Lightfoot  show  that  it  had  been  so 
used  by  the  Jews  before  and  during  the  time  of  the 
Apostles,  and  even  the  strongest  opponents  of  infant 
baptism  admit  that  Irenaeus  so  used  the  word.  Thus 
Alexander  Campbell  says  :  "  Well,  now  it  comes  to 
pass  that  I  represent  all  the  primitive  Fathers  as  using 
the  term  regenerated  as  equivalent  to  the  term  bap- 
tized. All  this  is  true;  and  what  then  ? 
But  on  a  more  accurate  and  strict  examination  of  their 
writings  [the  Fathers']  and  of  the  use  of  this  term  in 
the  New  Testament,  I  am  assured  that  they  used  the 
term    regenerated    as    equivalent   to   immersion,  and 


42  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

spoke  of  the  spiritual  change  under  other  terms  and 
modes  of  speech."  (Rice  and  Campbell  Debate,  430.) 
This  is  the  testimony  of  a  bitter  opponent  of  infant 
baptism.  Wall  says  :  "  The  ancients,  when  they 
speak  of  regeneration  as  applied  to  a  person  in  this 
world,  do  always  by  that  word  mean,  or  connate,  his 
baptism."  (I,  47.)  The  evidence  is,  therefore,  abso- 
lute and  overwhelming,  that  Irenaeus  meant  baptism 
by  regenerate.  We  hear  him,  then,  declare  that  "  in- 
fants "  are  "  baptized  to  God."  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  this  is  the  statement  of  a  man  who  was  the 
disciple  and  pupil  of  the  venerable  Polycarp,  who  was 
the  disciple  and  pupil  of  the  Apostle  John.  We  have 
already  seen  that  Origen,  who  was  born  in  A.  D.  185, 
was  baptized  in  infancy.  (See  Wall  and  Schaff.) 
Hence,  as  Irenaeus  wrote  the  book  from  which  we 
quote,  about  eighty-two  years  after  the  Aposdes'  time, 
this  statement  was  made  while  the  Church  was  un- 
questionably practicing  infant  baptism,  as  in  the  ease 
of  Origen.  Now,  is  it  to  be  presumed  that  right  there, 
under  the  shadow  of  the  Apostles,  and  while  their 
disciples  were  still  living — such  men  as  Polycarp,  who 
willingly  gave  up  their  lives  for  the  truth  of  Christian- 
ity— that  under  such  circumstances  a  grievous  innova- 
tion came  in,  and  the  holiest  and  truest  men  in  the 
Church  submitted  to  it  ?  Never  was  there  a  more 
absurd  conceit ! 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  43 

y^ustin  Martyr^  A.  D.  140 — 40  years  after  the 
Apostles.  This  eminent  man  in  the  Church  often 
speaks  of  baptism  as  "  spiritual  circumcision,"  recog- 
nizing thereby  the  same  relation  of  baptism  to  the 
Church  and  its  members  as  that  which  circumcision 
sustained.  On  this  subject  he  says  :  "And  we,  who 
have  approached  God  through  Him,  have  received 
not  carnal,  but  spiritual  circumcision,  which  Enoch 
and  those  like  him  observed.  And  we  have  received 
it  through  baptism,  since  we  were  sinners,  by  God's 
mercy;  and  all  men  may  equally  obtain  it."  (Dia. 
with  Trypho,  chap,  xiiii.) 

It  was  the  belief  of  these  Fathers,  as  it  has  been  of 
the  Church  at  all  times,  that  baptism  takes  the  place 
of  circumcision  in  the  Church,  and  consequently  is  to 
be  administered  to  infants  just  as  that  was.  In  the 
light  of  these  truths  we  are  now  prepared  to  under- 
stand the  following  statement  by  Justin  :  "And  many, 
both  men  and  women,  who  have  been  Christ's  disci- 
ples from  childhood  remain  pure  at  the  age  of  sixty  or 
seventy  years."     (Justin  Martyr's  First  Apology,  chap. 

XX.) 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  Justin  uses  the 
same  word  here  for  disciple  {efiadi^revdrjaav)  that 
Matthew  uses  in  the  commission.  (Matt,  xxviii.  19.) 
Now,  it  is  conceded  on  all  sides  that  baptism  is  one 
of  the  essential  items  in  discipling  persons  to  Christ ; 


44  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

and  from  the  office  of  baptism  in  the  Christian  econo- 
my as  Justin  understood  it — being  the  same  as  cir- 
cumcision— it  can  not  be  doubted  that  he  meant  to 
say  these  persons  were  baptized  to  Christ  in  childhood 
— natdcjv — infancy.  Now,  persons  seventy  years  old 
in  Justin's  time  who  had  been  baptized  in  infancy, 
were  baptized  only  about  thirty-six  years  after  the  As- 
cension of  Christ.  This  was,  consequently,  right  in 
the  Apostles'  time.  Schaff  says  of  Justin  :  "  He  ex- 
pressly teaches  the  capacity  of  all  men  for  spiritual 
circumcision  by  baptism  ;  and  his  rraoLV  [all]  can  with 
the  less  propriety  be  limited,  since  he  is  here  speaking 
to  a  Jew,  and  as  he  elsewhere  (in  his  smaller  Apolo- 
gy) speaks  of  old  men  who  have  been  from  childhood 
disciples  of  Christ."     (His.  Chr.  Ch.  I,  402.) 

Hernias  Fastor.  It  is  generally  believed  that  this 
work  was  written  before  the  Apostle  John  wrote  his 
Gospel  (Vid.  Wall,  I,  34),  and  consequently  it  con- 
ducts us  inside  the  Apostolic  age.  The  book  is  a  re- 
ligious allegory,  in  which  the  Church  is  represented  as 
a  tower  in  process  of  building.  I  shall  only  give  a 
summary  statement  of  the  line  of  reasoning  observed 
by  the  author.  The  foundation  of  the  tower,  or 
Church,  is  "  the  Son  of  God."  (Chap,  xii.)  The 
"tower"  built  thereon  "is  the  Church."  (Chap,  xiii.) 
The  stones  of  which  the  tower  was  built  were  taken 
from    ^'  twelve  mountains "    (chap,   i.),   which  repre- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  45 

sent  the  "twelve  tribes  which  inhabit  the  whole 
world."  (Chap,  xvii.)  As  the  stones  are  taken  from 
the  mountains  to  be  placed  in  the  building,  the  "  Seal," 
which  is  baptism,  is  appHed  to  them.  (Chap,  xvi.) 
Now,  the  question  is,  have  children  any  place  in  this 
tower,  or  Church  ?  We  quote  in  answer:  "And  they 
who  believed  Irom  the  twelfth  mountain,  which  was 
white,  are  the  following:  they  are  as  infant  children, 
in  whose  hearts  no  evil  originates;  nor  did  they  know 
what  wickedness  is,  but  always  remained  as  children. 
Such,  accordingly,  without  doubt,  dwell  in  the  king- 
dom of  God,  because  they  defiled  in  nodiingthe  com- 
mandment of  God ;  but  they  remained  like  children 
all  the  days  of  their  life  in  the  same  mind.  All  of 
you,  then,  who  shall  remain  steadfast,  and  be  as  child- 
ren, without  doing  evil,  will  be  more  honored  than  all 
who  have  been  previously  mentioned;  for  all  infants 
are  honorable  before  God,  and  are  the  first  persons 
with  Him."  (Chap,  xxix.)  It  is  only  necessary  to 
let  the  mind  run  over  the  contents  of  the  chapters 
above  given  to  see  the  bearing  of  this  statement  on 
the  question  before  us.  Here  was  a  -'tower" — the 
Church;  it  was  built  by  stones  taken  from  "twelve 
mountains" — the  nations;  to  each  "stone,"  as  it  was 
placed  in  the  tower,  the  "  Seal "  was  given — baptism  ; 
the  most  honorable  persons  in  this  "  tower,"  or  with 
the  owner  of  it,  who  is  God,  are  "  infants."     "Was  the 


46  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

"  Seal "  given  to  the  less  honorable,  and  withheld 
from  those  who  were  more  worthy  ?  This  would  be 
absurd.  We  claim,  therefore,  that  here  is  reliable  tes- 
timony, carrying  us  back  within  the  Apostolic  age, 
and  asserting  infant  baptism  and  infant  Church  mem- 
bership. In  view  of  this  unbroken  historic  line.  Dr. 
Schaff  says,  in  his  great  "  History  of  the  Church,"  vol. 
I,  p.  401  :  "  But  at  the  same  time  it  seems  to  us  a 
settled  fact,  though  by  many  disputed,  that,  with  the 
baptism  of  converts,  the  optional  baptism  of  the  child- 
ren of  Christian  parents  in  established  congregations, 
comes  down  from  the  Apostolic  age."  There  is  no 
fact  in  the  history  of  the  Church  better  attested  than 
that  of  infant  baptism.  In  the  first  one  thousand 
years  of  the  Church's  history  there  is  not  a  voice  raised 
against  it.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  now  seen  that 
Sozomen,  A.  D.  443 ;  Augustine,  388 ;  Chrysostom, 
380;  Ambrose,  374;  Basil,  360:  Gregory,  360;  Cy- 
prian, 250;  Origen,  210;  TertuUian,  200;  Clement, 
of  Alexandria,  192;  Irenaeus,  160;  Justin  Martyr, 
140;  and  Hermas  Pastor,  before  John  wrote  his 
Gospel — all  proclaim  it  as  the  practice  of  the 
Church. 

The  testimony  of  these  writers  is  the  more  remark- 
able from  the  fact  that  there  could  not  have  been 
any  collusion  between  them.  They  were  separated 
from  each  other  by  continents  and  oceans,  as  well  as 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  47 

centuries  of  time.  Still  their  voice  is  one.  I  shall 
close  this  chapter  by* referring  to  some  rules  as  laid 
down  by  the  distinguished  legal  writer,  Simon  Green- 
leaf,  LL.  D.,  lor  fourteen  years  the  colleague  of  Chief- 
Justice  Story,  and  afterward  the  honored  head  of  the 
most  distinguished  school  of  English  law  in  the  world. 
He  says :  "  Every  document,  apparently  ancient, 
coming  from  the  proper  repository  or  custody,  and 
bearing  on  its  face  no  evident  marks  of  forgery,  the 
law  presumes  to  be  genuine,  and  devolves  on  the  op- 
posing party  the  burden  of  proving  it  to  be  other- 
wise." (Greenleaf  on  Testimony  of  the  Evangelists, 
p.  7.)  We  present  in  court,  then,  the  depositions  of 
fourteen  unimpeached  witnesses,  testifying  to  infant 
baptism  back  to  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  Let  our  op- 
ponents disprove  these  documents  or  forever  abandon 
the  absurd  charge  of  innovation.  If  it  be  an  innova- 
tion, when  did  it  come  in  ?  If  it  be  not  an  innova- 
tion, it  was  practiced  by  the  Apostles.  This  we  pro- 
pose to  show  in  our  next. 


48  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


ARTICLE     IV. 

APOSTOLIC  PRACTICE APOSTLES  EDUCATED  IN  INFANT 

BAPTISM. 

Having  traced  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  back 
to  the  very  days  in  which  the  inspired  Apostles  lived 
and  taught,  and  having  seen  that  these  early  writers 
in  the  Church  do  almost  constandy  refer  to  the  Apos- 
tles as  authority  in  this  matter,  it  is  proper  now  to  ex- 
amine the  practice  of  these  holy  men  and  ascertain 
what  there  was  in  their  practice  to  warrant  these  state- 
ments of  the  Fathers.  In  prosecuting  this  inquiry,  we 
shall  first  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  whenever,  in 
the  ministry  of  the  Apostles,  the  head  of  a  family  was 
converted  to  Christianity,  it  is  expressly  stated  that 
the  family  thereof  was  baptized,  and  the  word  for  fam- 
ily is  carefully  selected  to  express  the  idea  of  father, 
mother  and  children.  We  will  show,  in  the  second 
place,  that  these  Apostles  were  reared  and  educated 
under  the  constant  practice  of  the  Church  to  baptize 
all,  including  infants,  who  were  proselyted  to  the  true 
faith. 

In  the  ministry  of  the  Apostles  we  have  the  record 
of  ten  baptisms;  e.  g.  (i)  Two  without  families — 
Paul  and  the  Eunuch. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


49 


(2)  Five  are  records  of  large  assemblies,  collected 
together  in  some  instances  on  a  sudden — as  Pente- 
cost, &c. 

(3)  Three  are  of  families — the  family  of  Stephanas, 
ist  Cor.  i.  16;  the  family  of  Lydia,  Acts  xvi.  15;  the 
family  of  the  Jailer,  Acts  xvi.  ^^.  Nearly  one-third, 
therefore,  of  the  baptisms  recorded  of  the  Apostles 
were  of  families.  Now,  in  expressing  these  family 
baptisms,  a  word  was  carefully  selected  which  nar- 
rows the  signification  down  to  the  father,  mother  and 
children  of  a  home.  This  is  worthy  of  notice.  There 
are  two  words  in  the  Greek  which  are  indiscriminately 
rendered,  in  our  version,  "  household."  This,  we 
think,  should  not  have  been.  The  words  in  question 
are,  (i)  oliua  {oikid)^  and  (2)  olnoq  [oikos).  The  first 
word,  oikia,  includes  in  its  meaning  servants,  attend- 
ants, friends,  and  any  others  who  may  be  attached  to 
a  family.  This  word  is  never  used  in  speaking  of 
household  or  family  baptism. 

The  second  word,  oikos,  means  the  family  proper, 
excluding  servants,  attendants,  &c.  This  word  is  al- 
ways used  to  express  family  baptism,  except  in  Acts 
XVI.  33,  where  its  equivalent  is  used.  We  have  only 
to  show  that  such  distinction  in  these  words  exists. 
This  we  proceed  to  do.  In  ist  Cor.  i.  16,  it  is  said 
that  Paul  "  baptized  the  household — olkov — of  Steph- 
anas," and  in  ist  Cor.  xvi.  15  it  is  said  that  the  "house" 
4 


50  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

— oLKtav — of  Stephanas  "  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints."  Now,  what  reason  is  there 
for  this  change  of  words  in  this  case  if  there  be  no  dif- 
ference between  them  ?  The  facts  simply  are,  that  m 
I  St  Cor.  i.  1 6,  Paul  baptized  the  family  proper  of 
Stephanas — father,  mother  and  children,  and  in  ist 
Cor.  xvi.  15,  a  few  years  after,  domestics  or  others  at- 
tached to  the  family  of  .Stephanas,  "addicted  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints."  Here,  then, 
when  the  family  proper  is  spoken  of,  oi^os  is  used,  and 
when  those  not  properly  of  the  family  are  spoken  of, 
oiha  is  used.  Again:  In  Numbers  xvi.  27-32,  we 
read  :  "And  Dathan  and  Abiram  came  out,  and  stood 
in  the  door  of  their  tents ;  and  their  wives,  and  their 
sons,  and  their  little  children.  And  the  earth  opened 
her  mouth,  and  swallowed  them  up,  and  their  houses 
— oLKovg — and  all  the  men  that  appertained  unto  Ko- 
rah,  and  all  their  goods." 

Here,  "the  wives,  the  sons  and  the  little  children 
of  these  men  are  called  their  oikos — their  family; 
while  others  who  were  attached  to  the  family,  but 
were  not  properly  of  it,  are  called  "the  men  that  ap- 
pertained unto  Korah."  Here,  then,  in  the  very 
Scriptures  from  which  the  Apostles  drew  their  reli- 
gious phraseology,  that  word  which  they  used  to  ex- 
press "  household  "  baptism  is  employed  carefully  to 
express  simply  the  father,  mother,    "  sons  and  little 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  5I 

children."  When  it  is  remembered  that  these  Apostles 
drew  their  religious  phraseology  from  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  (quotmg  in  their  epistles,  as  they  constantly 
do,  from  the  Greek  version  of  the  O.  T.),  it  is  very 
significant  that  they  should,  in  every  instance,  select  a 
word  to  express  "  household  "  baptism  which  in  the 
O.  T.  so  expressly  includes  "  the  little  children "  of 
the  family.  Our  position  with  reference  to  these 
words  is  ably  sustained  by  learned  critics.  Thus, 
Bloomfield  on  ist  Cor.  i.  1 6,  says,  ^^  oLicog,  'family,' 
including  every  age  and  sex,  and,  of  course,  infants." 
He  cites  an  example  from  Ignatius  in  proof.  It  is  a% 
follows  :  "  I  salute  the  households — otfcovg — of  my 
brethren  with  the  women  and  children."  Thus,  by 
the  Greek  Fathers,  oi^os  was  used  to  designate  the 
family  proper,  including  the  infants  thereof.  Dr. 
Summers  says :  "  The  term  oiKog  [oikos)  means  fam- 
ily as  distinct  from  oiKia  {pikia)  household."  (Bap- 
tism xxxii.)  Now,  with  the  fact  settled  beyond  rea- 
sonable doubt,  that  the  word  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  designate  "  household "  baptism,  does  thus 
carefully  exclude  all  but  father,  mother,  "  sons  and 
little  children,"  let  us  examine  the  record. 

Acts  xvi.  15.  "And  when  she  was  baptized,  and 
her  household,  she  besought  us,"  &:c.  Here  house- 
hold is  the  same  word  used  in  Numbers  xvi.  32,  in 
which  "  the  little  children "  are  mentioned  as  being 


52  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

included.  The  learned  inform  us  that  the  Peshito- 
Syriac  translation,  which  some  eminent  critics  believe 
was  made  in  the  first  century,  while  the  Apostles  were 
still  living,  and  none,  I  believe,  place  it  later  than 
about  the  close  of  the  second  century,  renders  this 
passage  thus  :  "  She  was  baptized,  and  her  children." 
Not  only  then  does  the  inspired  writer  use  a  word  in 
speaking  of  the  baptism  of  Lydia's  family,  which  in- 
cludes "the  little  children,"  but  the  oldest  translation 
in  the  world  of  that  inspired  statement,  is  that  her 
"  children  "  were  baptized  also.  This  is  conclusive. 
•  Acts  xvi.  2,3-  "And  he  took  them  the  same  hour 
of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes ;  and  was  bap- 
tized, he  and  all  his,  straightway."  It  is  true  that  ozkos 
is  not  employed  here ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  ol 
avTovTTavreg,  "  all  his,"  is  here  put  as  the  equivalent  of 
oikas — family.  All  the  old  English  translators  so  un- 
derstood it.  Thus,  Wicklif,  1380,  renders  it,  "and 
alle  his  hous ;"  Tyndale,  1534,  has  it,  "was  baptized 
with  all  that  belonged  unto  him;"  Cranmer,  1539, 
renders  it,  "  and  all  they  of  his  household;  "  the  Ge- 
neva version  of  1557,  "with  all  that  belonged  unto 
him  ;  "  and  the  Rheims  version  of  1582  has,  "  and  all 
his  house."  The  critics  so  understand  it.  Lange 
says  :  "  They  [the  Apostles]  returned  that  act  of  love 
by  another,  when  they  baptized  him  and  his  family  at 
the  same  water."     They  baptized  his  family  just  as 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  53 

they  a  day  or  two  before  had  baptized  Lydia's  family. 
When  we  consider,  as  we  presently  shall,  the  educa- 
tion of  these  Apostles  with  reference  to  infant  baptism 
and  Church  membership,  such  expressions  cannot  be 
misunderstood. 

First  Cor.  i.  i6.  "And  I  baptized  also  the  house- 
hold of  Stephanas."  The  word  for  household  here  is 
oikos.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  means  the  immediate 
family,  and  was  so  used  by  Paul  in  many  instances. 
Thus,  giving  instruction  to  bishops,  he  says  :  "  One 
that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,  oikov,  having  his  child- 
ren in  subjection  with  all  gravity;  for  if  a  man  know 
not  how  to  rule  his  own  house,  olkov,  how  shall  he 
take  care  of  the  Church  of  God."  (ist  Tim.  iii.  4,  5.) 
Now,  upon  the  supposition  that  the  infants  of  a  fami- 
ly are  not  to  be  baptized,  can  it  be  conceived  how  the 
Apostle  could,  with  propriety,  use  a  word  in  speaking 
of  family  baptisms  which  he  elsewhere  employs  to  ex- 
press the  entire  family,  infants  and  all  ?  To  suppose 
such  a  thing  would  be  to  charge  a  culpable  indiffer- 
ence in  the  use  of  words  upon  an  inspired  Apostle. 
We  claim,  therefore,  that  these  facts  demonstrate  that 
the  Apostles  practiced  infant  baptism.  The  Fathers, 
who  lived  nearest  to  them,  so  understood  it,  and  con- 
sequently they  speak,  again  and  again,  of  infant  bap- 
tism being  practiced  and  "  ordered  "  by  the  Apostles. 

But,  that  we  may  still  further  see  that  these  "house- 


54  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

hold,"  or  family,  baptisms  did  necessarily  involve  in- 
fant baptism,  let  us  look  at  the  education  of  these 
Apostles  and  their  co-laborers  with  reference  to  this 
thing. 

We  fearlessly  affirm  that  no  custom  was  more  com- 
mon among  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and 
for  ages  before,  than  the  baptism  of  proselytes,  includ- 
ing families  and  infants.  If  now  it  can  be  shown  that 
these  Apostles  grew  up  and  received  their  training 
amid  the  universal  prevalence  of  infant  baptism,  of 
household  baptisms,  including  infants,  and  of  the  un- 
hesitating recognition  by  all  of  the  eligibility  of  infants 
to  membership  in  the  Church,  it  will  amount  to  dem- 
onstration that  they  practiced  infant  baptism,  when, 
in  accordance  with  this  their  training,  they  went  forth 
proselyting  the  nations  and  baptizing  families. 

We  ask  the  reader,  therefore,  to  accompany  us  in 
the  examination  of  some  authorities  establishing  the 
custom  of  proselyte  and  infant  baptism  among  the 
Jews. 

Maimonides,  a  learned  Rabbi  and  commentator  on 
Jewish  law,  says  :  "A  stranger  that  is  circumcised 
and  not  baptized,  or  baptized  and  not  circumcised,  he 
is  not  a  proselyte  till  he  be  both  circumcised  and  bap- 
tized ;  and  he  must  be  baptized  in  the  presence  of 
three,"  &c.  Again :  "  Even  as  they  circumcise  and 
baptize  strangers,  so  do  they  circumcise  and  baptize 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  55 

servants  that  are  received  from  heathens,"  Sue.     (Wall 

I.  3,  4-) 

Lightfoot,  speaking  of  John's  baptism,  says  :  "  But 
yet  the  first  use  of  baptism  was  not  exhibited  at  that 
time.  For  baptism,  very  many  centuries  of  years 
backward,  had  been  b.oth  known  and  received  in  most 
frequent  uses  among  the  Jews — and  for  the  same  end 
as  it  now  obtains  among  Christians — namely,  that  by 
it  proselytes  might  be  admitted  into  the  Church ;  and 
hence  it  was  called  baptism  for  proselytisms."  Again, 
he  says  :  "All  the  nation  of  Israel  do  assert,  as  it  were 
with  one  mouth,  that  all  the  nation  of  Israel  were 
brought  into  the  covenant,  among  other  things,  by 
baptism.  'Israel  (saith  Maimonides,  the  great  inter- 
preter of  the  Jewish  law)  was  admitted  into  the  cove- 
nant by  three  things — namely,  by  circumcision,  bap- 
tism and  sacrifice,"  &c.  Again  :  "  Whenever  any 
heathen  will  betake  himself,  and  be  joined  to  the  cove- 
nant of  Israel,  and  place  himself  under  the  wings  of 
the  divine  majesty,  and  take  the  yoke  of  the  law  upon 
him  voluntary,  circumcision,  baptism  and  oblation  are 
required ;  but  if  it  be  a  woman,  baptism  and  oblation. 
That  was  a  common  axiom  :  No  man  is  a  proselyte 
until  he  be  circumcised  and  baptized.  .  .  .  They 
baptized  also  young  children  (for  the  most  part  with 
their  parents)!  '  They  baptize  a  little  proselyte  ac- 
cording to  the  judgment  of  the  Sanhedrim.'     (Bab. 


$6  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Erubhin.)  .  .  .  '  This  is  to  be  understood  of  little 
children,  who  are  made  proselytes  together  with  their 
father.'     .  .     If  an  Israehte  take  a  Gentile  child, 

or  find  a  Gentile  infant,  and  baptize  him  in  the  name 
of  a  proselyte,  behold,  he  is  a  proselyte."  (Lightfoot, 
Hor.  Heb.  et  Tal.,  vol.  II,  pp.  54-57.) 

Here  it  is  made  manifest  that  proselyte  baptism  ex- 
isted in  the  Church  many  centuries  before  the  time  of 
the  Apostles,  and  that  the  infant  children  of  proselytes 
were  always  baptized  with  their  parents.  Household 
baptisms,  therefore,  including  infants,  were  just  as 
common  among  the  Jews  as  household  circumcision. 
Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  had  read  up  exhaustively  the  en- 
tire literature  of  the  Hebrews,  says  that  "  all  the  na- 
tion of  Israel  do  assert,  as  it  were  with  one  mouth,  that 
all  the  nation  of  Israel  were  brought  into  the  cove- 
nant, among  other  things,  by  baptism."  What, 
now,  we  ask,  could  have  been  the  construction,  and 
the  only  construction,  which  a  Jew  would  place  upon 
the  language  of  Luke  and  Paul  when  they  again  and 
again  speak  of  baptizing  "  the  household "  of  such 
and  such  persons  ?  Unless  we  assume  that  a  nation 
did,  in  a  day,  change  its  whole  religious  phraseology, 
without  any  reason  appearing  why  they  should  do  so, 
we  must  admit  that  the  Jews,  to  whom  these  inspired 
documents  were  directed,  and  the  Apostles  who  wrote 
them,    must   have    understood   such    expressions    as 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  57 

"  household  "  or  "  family  baptism  "  in  the  same  sense 
in  which  those  phrases  had  been  used  for  ages — 
namely,  as  including  infants.  Home  lays  it  down  as 
a  universal  rule,  that  "  The  received  signification  of  a 
word  is  to  be  retained,  unless  weighty  and  necessary 
reasons  require  that  it  should  be  abandoned  or  ne- 
glected." (Introduction  Pt.  11,  335.)  But  no  such 
"  weighty  and  necessary  reasons  "  have  ever  been  ad- 
duced by  our  opponents  showing  why  Paul  and  others 
used  those  phrases  in  a  different  sense  from  that 
which  they  had  borne  in  all  the  literature  of  all  the 
ages  of  the  Hebrew  people. 

If  it  were  necessary  to  substantiate  the  statements 
of  Lightfoot  and  Wall  concerning  this  practice  of  pro- 
selyte infant  baptism,  we  might  array,  almost  without 
end,  the  names  of  the  most  distinguished  scholars  of 
the  past  and  present,  who  afhrm  the  same.  We  will 
give  a  few  as  samples. 

Kitto's  Cyclo.  Bib.  Lit.,  vol.  Ill,  Art.  Proselytes. 
"According  to  the  Rabbins,  baptism  was  even  more 
essential  than  circumcision.  .  .  .  When  a  prose- 
lyte had  young  children,  these  were  baptized  with 
their  parents.  .  .  .  Assuming  that  they  practiced 
that  rite  before,  we  can  account  for  their  not  giving  it 
up  simply  because  the  Christians  had  adopted  it;  but, 
trace  it  as  we  please  to  Jewish  customs  and  rites,  it 
seems  utterly  m credible  that  after  it  had  become  the 


58  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

symbol  and  badge  of  the  religious  party,  which  of  all 
others,  perhaps,  the  Jews  most  bitterly  hated,  any 
consideration  whatever  should  have  induced  them  to 
begin  to  practice  it.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have,  in 
favor  of  the  hypothesis  that  proselyte  baptism  was 
practiced  anterior  to  the  time  of  our  Lord,  some 
strongly  corroborative  evidence.  We  have,  in  the 
first  place,  the  unanimous  tradition  of  the  Jewish  Rab- 
bins, who  impute  to  the  practice  an  antiquity  com- 
mensurate almost  with  that  of  their  nation  Secondly, 
we  have  the  fact  that  the  baptism  of  John  the  Baptist 
was  not  regarded  by  the  people  as  aught  of  a  novelty, 
nor  was  represented  by  him  as  resting  for  its  authority 
upon  any  special  divine  revelation.  Thirdly,  we  have 
the  fact  that  the  Pharisees  looked  upon  the  baptism 
both  of  John  and  Jesus  as  a  mode  of  proselyting  men 
to  their  religious  views  (John  iv.  1-3)  and  that  the 
dispute  between  the  Jews  and  the  sons  of  John's  disci- 
ples about  purifying,  was  apparently  a  dispute  as  to 
the  competing  claims  of  John  and  Jesus  to  make  pro- 
selytes." We  give  so  much  of  this  valuable  article 
because  it  expresses  so  concisely  the  views  of  the 
learned  world.  To  the  names  already  given  might  be 
added  those  of  Selden,  Danze,  Witsius,  Kuincel,  Jahn, 
Halley,  Buxtorf,  Schoetgen,  Wetstein,  Furst,  Mosheim 
and  Schaff. 

If,  therefore,  learning  and  the  literature  of  a  people 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  59 

can  establish  anything,  or  is  worth  anything  in  deter- 
mining the  customs  of  a  people,  then  it  is  established 
that  proselyte  infant  baptism  was  the  universal  custom 
of  the  Hebrews  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  had 
been  for  ages.  Now,  under  these  influences,  these 
Hebrew  men,  who  were  made  the  Apostles  of  Christ, 
were  reared  and  educated.  There  had  never  been  a 
suspicion  in  their  minds  against  the  eligibility  of  infants 
to  a  place  in  the  Church  and  to  the  token  of  covenant 
relation ;  they  had  witnessed  the  baptism  of  families, 
including  infants,  whenever  a  Gentile  father  or  mother 
sought  a  place  among  God's  Israel;  their  Divine 
Master  had  uttered  no  syllable  indicating  that  a  change 
in  this  respect  was  to  characterize  their  practice ;  and 
now,  with  such  an  education,  and  from  the  midst  of 
this  universally  prevalent  custom,  they  go  forth  to 
proselyte  the  "nations"  to  Christ,  and  in  this  work 
nearly  one-third  of  the  baptisms  recorded  of  them  are 
of  "  households  "  or  "  families."  Logic  and  common 
sense  leave  but  one  conclusion  to  be  drawn — namely, 
that  they  baptized  infants,  as  their  fathers  had  done 
through  the  ages  past. 

There  is  one  point  in  this  question  of  Jewish  prose- 
lyte baptism  which  it  may  be  well  here  to  notice,  be- 
cause our  opponents,  in  their  despair,  invariably  run 
to  it.  They  tell  us  that  no  such  thing  as  baptism  is 
commanded  in  the  inspired  laws  of  the  Hebrews  ;  and 


6o  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

that  if  baptism  was  added  by  the  Hebrews  at  any 
time  before  Christ,  it  was  an  innovation,  and  conse- 
quently heretical.  This  is  the  best  they  can  do  in 
setting  aside  this  custom.  But  this  cavil  may  be  suc- 
cessfully exposed  and  refuted  in  many  ways. 

Thus,  for  example,  when  the  Passover  was  instituted 
no  mention  is  made  of  wine  as  any  part  of  the  ele- 
ments of  the  Passover  Supper.  The  Paschal  "  lamb," 
"  unleavened  bread  "  and  "  bitter  herbs  "  are  the  only 
things  mentioned  in  the  institution  of  that  solemn  feast. 
(See  Ex.  xii.  i-io.)  And  yet,  when  Christ  ate  the 
last  Passover  with  his  disciples,  and  of  it  instituted  his 
Supper,  wine  was  an  essential  part  in  that  Passover, 
and  Jesus  recognized  the  rightfulness  of  its  being  there 
when  he  used  it  in  the  institution  of  His  Supper.  In 
like  manner,  if  we  were  to  admit  that  no  mention  of 
baptism  is  made  in  the  law  concerning  a  proselyte, 
still  here  was  the  custom  of  baptizing  them,  extending 
back  to  the  remotest  periods  in  Hebrew  history,  and 
Christ  recognizes  its  rightfulness  in  that  he  enjoins 
upon  his  Apostles  to  baptize  all  whom  they  proselyte 
to  him.  But  there  is  divine  authority  for  the  existence 
of  baptism  among  the  Hebrews  anterior  to  the  Apos- 
tles. Thus,  Paul  says  of  their  ordinances,  "  which 
stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  washings 
{or  baptisms,  (3a7TTLaiJ,oLg),  and  carnal  ordinances,  im- 
posed on  them  until  the  time  of  reformation."  (Heb. 
ix.  lo.) 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  6l 

Here  it  is  plainly  declared  that  He  who  imposed 
the  ordinances  of  "  meats  and  drinks  "  upon  the  He- 
brews, also  imposed  the  ordinance  of  *'  divers  bap- 
tisms." Again:  "  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not 
have  you  ignorant  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under 
the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea ;  and  were 
all  baptized  [(SaTTTi^d))  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea."  (ist  Cor.  x.  i,  2.)  Here,  "  the  whole  na- 
tion of  Israel "  was  baptized  when  they  came  out  of 
Egypt.  "And  when  they  came  from  the  market,  ex- 
cept they  wash  (or  baptize^  f^arrrLOCDvr at),  they  eat  not. 
And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  re- 
ceived to  hold,  as  the  washing  (or  baptism,  (3a7TrLaiJ,og) 
of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables." 
(Mark  vii.  4.)  We  have  seen  from  Heb.  ix.  10  that 
these  baptisms  were  "  imposed  "  on  them  by  the  same 
authority  that  imposed  the  ordinances  of  "  meats  and 
drinks  " — namely,  Jehovah.  Baptism,  therefore,  was 
of  divine  appointment  among  the  Hebrews,  and  that 
baptism  was  given  to  infants. 

Men,  therefore,  who  had  been  educated  under  this 
divinely  appointed  rite,  and  who  had  witnessed  it 
through  their  entire  lives,  would  have  required  special 
instruction  from  the  Master,  and  the  most  explicit 
commands,  before  they  could  have  been  brought  to 
practice  contrarily.  Witness,  for  example,  the  difficul- 
ty there  was  in  inducing  Peter  "  to  go  to  the  Gen- 


62  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

tiles,"  whom  he  had  been  taught  by  his  reUgion  to 
regard  as  unclean.  God  had  not  only  to  give  an  ex- 
press command,  "  Get  thee  down,  and  go  with  them" 
(Acts  X.  20),  but  he  had  to  work  a  wonder,  in  the 
vision  of  "  the  sheet,"  before  the  religious  training  of 
this  Jew  could  be  overcome.  And  after  all  this  had 
been  done,  Peter  went  to  Cornelius  with  these  words, 
"  Ye  know  how  that  it  is  an  unlawful  thing  for  a  man 
that  is  a  Jew  to  keep  company,  or  come  unto  one  of 
another  nation."  (Acts  x.  28.)  Now,  in  the  face  of 
such  facts,  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism  would 
have  us  believe  that  these  Apostles,  educated  and  de- 
veloped in  all  their  religious  life  under  the  practice  of 
infant  baptism,  whenever  a  Gentile  family  was  prose- 
lyted, themselves  went  forth  to  proselyte  the  Gentile 
world,  and,  without  one  hint  or  suggestion  from  the 
Master,  abandoned  in  their  practice  that  which  they 
had  been  educated  to  believe  an  essential  feature  of 
religion.  The  thing  is  too  absurd  to  be  entertained 
for  a  moment. 

Let  us  now  run  back  over  the  argument  from  an 
authoritative  example.  We  have  seen  that  in  the  first 
four  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  the  voice  of  history 
is  uniform  in  regard  to  the  practice  of  infant  baptism. 
We  traced  it  inside  the  Apostolic  age.  Here  is  the 
practice  of  the  Church  in  its  purest  age.  We  have 
seen  that  the  Apostles,  who  were  reared  and  educated 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  63 

under  the  universal  prevalence  of  infant  baptism,  did 
always  baptize  the  whole  family  when  the  head  there- 
of received  Christ ;  and  that  in  the  education  of  the 
Apostles  such  family  baptisms  always  involved  the 
baptism  of  infants.  We  have  seen  that  the  proselyte 
baptism  among  the  Hebrews,  which  included  that  of 
infants,  was  not  an  innovation,  but  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, as  certified  to  by  St.  Paul,  in  Heb.  ix.  lo.  Now, 
if  the  opponents  of  infant  baptism  were  called  upon 
to  produce  one-half  the  authority  for  setting  aside  the 
"  seventh  day "  as  a  holy  day,  and  for  substituting 
therefor  the  first  day  of  the  week,  that  is  here  pro- 
duced for  infant  baptism,  they  could  not  do  it  to  save 
the  world !  And  yet,  with  an  effrontery  which  is  ab- 
solutely shocking,  they  declare  that  infant  baptism  has 
no  divine  warrant ! 

We  shall  take  up  in  our  next  our  first  method  of 
proof — namely,  a  divine  command. 


64  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


ARTICLE     V . 

THE  COMMISSION  A  POSITIVE  COMMAND — UNDER  IT 
"  LITTLE  CHILDREN  "  ARE  TO  BE  RECEIVED  "  IN 
THE    NAME    OF    JESUS." 

We  have  stated  that  one  method  of  proving  a  pro- 
position is  a  cot?i?na?id — "  Do  this  or  that." 

But  how  shall  we  determine  to  whom  such  a  com- 
mand extends  ?  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  a  com- 
mand may,  and  often  does,  extend  to  parties  not 
named  in  it.  In  the  event,  then,  of  a  controversy  as 
to  whether  a  certain  party  is  contemplated  in  a  given 
command,  how  could  it  be  satisfactorily  determined  ? 
Simply  by  ascertaining  whether  that  party  belongs  to 
the  class  named  in  the  command.  This  position  may 
be  fully  established  by  reference  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
In  it  the  command  is,  '*  Do  this  in  remembrance  of 
me."  Xow,  if  one  were  disposed  to  be  captious,  and 
to  confide  in  such  arguments  as  the  opponents  of  in- 
fant baptism  put  forth,  he  might  urge,  with  great 
plausibility,  that  women  are  not  entitled  to  partake  of 
this  Supper.  He  might  urge  the  following  considera- 
tions, which  are  much  stronger  against  giving  the  Sup- 
per  to   women  than  anything  they  have  put  forth 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  65 

against  infant  baptism.  E.  g. — It  might  be  urged  (i), 
That  none  but  men  were  present  when  the  Supper  was 
instituted ;  (2),  That  no  mention  is  made  by  any  of  the 
inspired  writers  of  any  instance  in  which  a  woman 
partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  There  is  not  one  such 
example;  (3),  That  the  appellations  given  in  the  New 
Testament  to  those  who  partook  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, such  as  [MaOrjTfjg,  dytog,  {jiiatheetees^  hagios),  &c., 
are  in  the  masculine  gender;  and  (4),  That  when  the 
Apostle  gave  directions  about  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  he  employed  a  word  which  is  often  used  to 
distinguish  the  man  from  the  woman.  Thus,  ist  Cor. 
xi.  28,  "  But  let  a  man — avdpoj-jog  {aiithropos)  exam- 
ine himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink 
of  that  cup."  Now,  the  word  for  man  here  is  often 
used  to  distinguish  man  from  woman. 

I  will  give  a  few  examples  :  Gen.  ii.  24,  "  There- 
fore shall  a  man  {a?ithropos)  leave  his  father  and 
mother  and  cleave  unto  his  wife."  Gen.  xxvi.  11, 
"And  Abimelech  charged  all  his  people,  saying,  He 
that  toucheth  this  man  [anihropon)  or  his  wite,  shall 
surely  be  put  to  death."  Gen.  xxxiv.  14,  "And  they 
said  unto  them,  We  can  not  do  this  thing,  to  give  our 
sister  to  one  [anthropd)  that  is  uncircumcised."  Matt, 
xix.  10,  "  His  disciples  say  unto  him,  If  the  case  ot 
the  man  {anthropon)  be  so  with  his  wife,  it  is  not  good 
to  marry;"  xix.  3,  "  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  {anthropo) 
5 


66  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause  ?"  These  exam- 
ples might  be  indefinitely  multiplied,  were  it  necessary. 
These,  however,  show  that  when  the  Apostle  gave 
direction  about  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  he 
used  a  term  which  signifies  man  as  distinguished 
from  woman.  What  an  array  a  shrewd  debater  could 
thus  make  against  permitting  women  to  commune ! 
And,  O  !  if  our  opponents  could  adduce  anything  half 
so  strong  against  infant  baptism,  how  they  would 
exult  in  it !  Now,  how  do  we  determine  that  the 
command,  "  Do  this,"  extends  to  women  ?  In  other 
words,  how  can  we  justify  the  practice  of  giving  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  them  ?  Simply  by  determining 
whether  they  belong  to  that  class  to  whom  this  com- 
mand is  given.  What  is  the  class  ?  They  that  "  re- 
member "  Jesus — "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me." 
Upon  this,  and  this  alone,  we  give  the  Supper  to  wo- 
men. 

Now  let  us  apply  this  rule  to  the  question  under 
consideration.  The  commission  as  given  in  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  is  as  follows  :  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach 
[or  disciple]  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Here  the  command  is,  disciple,  baptize ;  the  class  is, 
"  all  nations."  Do  infants  belong  to  the  class  ?  Are 
they  a  part  of  '•  the  nations  ?"  If  so,  then  the  com- 
mand extends  to  them  as  well  as  to  any  others  of  "  the 
nations." 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  6j 

Let  US  see  if  the  Scriptures  use  the  expression,  "the 
nations,"  so  as  to  include  infants.  John  xi.  50,  "  Now 
consider  that  it  is  expedient  for  us  that  one  man  die 
for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not." 
If  a  "  whole  nation  "  were  to  perish,  would  the  in- 
fants thereof  escape?  Acts  xvii.  26,  God  ''hath 
made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on 
all  the  face  of  the  earth."  When  God  made  "  all  na- 
tions "  were  infants  not  included  ?  Thus  it  is  most 
manifest  that  the  very  terms  of  the  commission  em- 
brace infants — "  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them." 
The  very  moment  the  opponent  of  infant  baptism  dis- 
proves the  rule  by  which  we  extend  the  command  to 
baptize  in  this  commission  to  infants,  that  moment  he 
takes  away  the  only  ground  upon  which  he  can  vin- 
dicate his  practice  of  giving  the  Lord's  Supper  to  wo- 
men. Here,  therefore,  we  claim,  is  a  positive  com- 
mand for  infant  baptism.  That  we  may  the  more 
fully  realize  the  force  of  this,  let  us  consider  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  the  Apostles  received  this 
commission.  We  do  not  understand  that  this  com- 
mission was  first  given  after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
The  record  shows  the  contrary.  Thus,  Matt.  x.  2-6, 
"  Now  the  names  of  the  twelve  Apostles  are  these  : 
The  first  Simon,  who  is  called  Peter,  and  Andrew  his 
brother,  &c.  .  .  .  These  twelve  Jesus  sent  forth, 
Bud  commanded  them,  saying,  Go  not  into  the  way 


68  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans 
enter  ye  not ;  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel.  And  as  ye  go,  preach,  saying.  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  &c.  Mark  says,  iii. 
13-14,  that  he  "  ordained  twelve,  that  they  should  be 
with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to 
preach."  Matt.  x.  contains  just  such  full  and  com- 
plete instructions  as  we  would  reasonably  expect  such 
ambassadors  to  have.  Here,  then,  is  the  commission 
as  given  about  two  years  before  the  crucifixion.  This 
commission  authorized  them  to  "  preach  "  and  to  bap- 
tize. It  is  evident  from  John  iv.  1-3  that  they  did 
baptize.  Now,  when  this  commission  was  given  it 
limited  them,  in  all  their  labors,  to  "  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel."  Beyond  this  they  were  not  al- 
lowed at  that  time  to  go.  But  when,  after  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus,  "  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth  " 
was  given  him,  he  lifted  this  limitation,  and  sent  them 
"  into  all  the  world,"  to  "  disciple  "  and  "  baptize  all 
nations."  The  statement  which  we  have,  therefore, 
in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20,  is  simply  an  epitome  of  the 
commission  as  given  more  than  two  years  before ;  and 
the  only  difterence  between  this  epitome  and  the  full 
commission  is,  that  in  the  full  commission  they  are 
limited  in  their  operations  to  the  Hebrews,  and  in  the 
epitome  that  limitation  is  removed. 

These  facts  being  estabHshed,  we  are  prepared  to 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  69 

appreciate  the  bearing  of  this  commission  on  infant 
baptism.  When  it  was  first  given,  it  was  to  men  who 
all  their  lives  had  witnessed  infant  baptism  in  the 
Church  whenever  a  Gentile  family  was  proselyted, 
and  it  sent  them  restrictively  to  a  people  who  had 
practiced  infant  baptism,  according  to  their  own  testi- 
mony, from  time  immemorial.  When  they  first  went 
forth  under  this  commission  to  preach  and  baptize, 
proselyte  baptism,  including  infants,  existed  everywhere 
among  "  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,"  to 
whom  they  were  restrictively  sent.  Now,  if  this  prac- 
tice was  to  be  ignored  by  them  in  their  operations, 
every  dictate  of  reason  and  safety  for  the  future  indi- 
cated this  as  the  point  at  which  definite  instructions 
against  the  practice  should  have  been  given  them. 
To  take  men  whose  whole  religious  life  had  been  de- 
veloped under  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  and  in- 
fant Church  membership,  and  send  them  to  preach 
the  "kingdom  of  God"  to  a  people  among  whom 
this  thing  prevailed  everywhere  and  was  recognized 
by  them  as  of  divine  appointment,  and  give  these 
men  no  instruction  against  this  practice,  was  the  most 
direct  and  inevitable  method  of  insuring  heretical 
practices,  if  this  thing  was  not  to  be  continued,  that 
could  possibly  have  been  chosen.  But  not  only  were 
they  commissioned  and  sent,  under  these  circum- 
stances, to  "the  lost   sheep   of  the  house   ot    Israel," 


7©  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

without  a  hint  from  their  Divine  Master  that  they 
were  to  practice  in  this  respect  differently  from  what 
they  had  all  their  lives  witnessed,  but  after  his  resur- 
rection they  were  sent  "  into  all  the  world  "  to  disci- 
ple and  baptize  "  all  nations  "  upon  the  same  com- 
mission, and  without  a  hint  that  they  were  to  abandon 
a  practice  which  they  had  all  their  lives  been  taught 
was  of  divine  appointment. 

Suppose,  for  illustration,  that  their  commission  had 
read  thus :  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  disciple  all  na- 
tions, circumcising  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Now,  our 
opponents  admit  the  prevalence  of  circumcision  among 
these  Hebrews,  and  that  every  proselyte,  including  his 
infants,  if  he  had  any,  was  circumcised.  These  Apos- 
tles, then,  religiously  reared  and  educated  to  believe 
in  the  divine  rightfulness  of  infant  circumcision,  would, 
under  such  a  commission,  have  had  no  hesitancy  in 
circumcising  the  infants  of  a  family  when  the  parents 
were  discipled  to  Christ.  It  would  have  required  an 
express  injunction  from  the  Master  against  this  thing, 
and  the  assigning  of  reasons  for  such  prohibition,  to 
keep  the  Apostles  from  practicing  it.  But,  according 
to  the  most  undoubted  source  of  information  in  the 
world,  infant  baptism  prevailed  among  the  Hebrews 
as  extensively  as  infant  circumcision,  and  the  religious 
training  of  every  Hebrew  was  just  the  same  with  refer- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  71 

ence  to  the  one  as  the  other.  Why,  then,  will  our 
opponents  continue  to  assume  that  they  so  readily, 
and  without  instruction,  abandoned  the  one  while  it 
required  the  most  express  commands  and  a  long  coun- 
ter-education to  induce  them  to  give  up  the  other  ? 
Such  assumptions  may  be  a  fine  illustration  of  one's 
adherence  to  his  party,  but  it  can  never  pass  as  an 
exhibition  of  intelligence  and  candor. 

I  shall  at  this  point  notice  two  objections  which  our 
opponents  make  against  the  position  that  infant  bap- 
tism is  authorized  by  this  commission:  (i)  It  is  ob- 
jected that  my  rule  which  extends  the  command  to 
"  baptize  "  to  intants  because  they  belong  to  the  class 
named — namely,  "  all  nations,"  would  also  extend 
that  command  to  thieves,  murderers,  swearers,  &c., 
because  they  also  belong  to  the  class,  "  all  nations." 
This  is  simply  an  ingenious  dodge,  and  its  sophistry 
can  be  exposed  in  a  moment.  We  have  simply  to  ask 
the  question — Do  "  thieves,  murderers,  swearers,"  &c., 
sustain  the  saved  relation  to  Christ's  kingdom  that  in- 
fants possess  ?  In  Matt.  xix.  14  we  read :  "  But 
Jesus  said,  suffer  little  children  and  forbid  them  not  to 
come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven;" 
and,  in  Mark  x.  14,  "  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not:  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  God."  Whenever  it  can  be  shown  that  thieves, 
murderers,  &c.,  have  any  such  relation  to  the  kingdom 


72  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

of  heaven  as  is  here  affirmed  of  "  Httle  children,"  then 
will  this  anti-Psedobaptist  objection  have  some  force, 
not  before. 

(2)  It  is  objected  that  there  are  essential  parts  of 
this  commission  which  cannot  be  affirmed  of  infants, 
and  that,  therefore,  they  are  not  embraced  in  it.  Thus, 
it  is  said,  the  commission  embraces  '"teaching,"  "faith," 
"  salvation,"  "  damnation ; "  an  infant  can  not  be 
"  taught,"  it  can  not  ''  believe,"  it  can  not  be  "  damn- 
ed," and  therefore  it  is  not  a  proper  subject  for  the 
other  item  of  the  commission — namely,  baptism. 
There  is  much  sophistry  in  this  so-called  process  of 
reasoning,  which  our  opponents  never  fail  to  get  off 
on  this  question.  We  propose  to  expose  it.  Let  the 
reader  get  the  issue  fairly  before  him.  Baptists  and 
Campbellites  affirm  that  infants  are  not  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism  because  they  can  not  '-'repent,"  "be- 
lieve," "  be  saved  from  sin,"  or  be  exposed  to  "  dam- 
nation " — the  things  contemplated  in  the  commission. 
Now,  let  us  try  this  logic.  It  is  an  axiom  in  reason- 
ing that  any  process  of  argumentation  that  would  es- 
tablish a  position  which  is  clearly  against  the  truth, 
or  which  would  support  a  manifest  falsehood,  is  false 
and  sophistical.  Now,  let  us  see  if  this  process  of 
argumentation,  adopted  by  our  opponents,  would  es- 
tablish a  proposition  which  is  contrary  to  fact.  It 
will  not  be  denied  that  Jesus  Christ  was  baptized,  and 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  73 

it  will  not  be  contended  by  any  that  he  was  not  a 
suitable  subject  for  baptism.  But  which  of  these  items 
ot  the  commission  could  be  affirmed  of  him  ?  Could 
he  "  repent  ?"  He  was  without  sin.  Could  he  exer- 
cise saving  faith  ?  He  is  "  the  author  and  finisher  " 
of  it — himself  the  object  of  saving  faith.  Could  he  be 
saved  from  sin  ?  "  He  knew  no  sin."  If,  therefore, 
no  one  is  a  proper  subject  of  baptism  but  he  who  can 
"repent,"  "believe,"  be  "saved  from  sin,"  &c.,  then 
Jesus  Christ  was  not  a  proper  subject.  The  objection 
would  thus  prove  a  falsehood,  and,  therefore,  is  in  it- 
self false  and  sophistical. 

Again:  The  same  objection  would  disprove  infant 
circumcision.  What  did  circumcision  stand  connected 
with  in  the  Scriptures  ?  We  read.  Acts  xv.  24,  "  Ye 
must  be  circumcised,  and  keep  the  law."  Gal.  v.  3, 
"  Every  man  who  is  circumcised  is  a  debtor  to  do  the 
whole  law,"  Rom.  ii.  25,  "  Circumcision  profiteth,  if 
thou  keep  the  law."  Now,  could  an  infant  at  eight 
days  of  age  "keep  the  law,"  and  "be  a  debtor  to  do 
the  whole  law  ?"  If  the  inability  of  the  infant  to  ex- 
ercise the  "  faith,"  "  repentance,"  &c.,  of  the  com- 
mission proves  him  to  be  ineligible  to  the  baptism 
connected  with  these,  would  not  the  inability  of  the 
infant  to  "  keep  the  law,"  "  be  a  debtor  to  do  the 
whole  law,"  &:c.,  prove  him  ineligible  to  the  circum- 
cision connected  with   these  ?     Thus  the  sophistry  of 


74  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

this  objection  is  dissipated.  When  our  opponents  try- 
to  reason  upon  this  question  they  outrage  all  the  rules 
of  logic  and  of  common  sense. 

Thus  they  assume  that  when  the  Scriptures  say 
"repent  and  be  baptized,"  or  "  he  that  beheveth  and 
is  baptized,"  repentance  and  faith  are  required  of  all 
in  order  to  baptism.  But  we  have  seen  that  this  is 
untrue.  Jesus  Christ  was  baptized,  but  not  upon  the 
condition  of  faith  and  repentance.  Faith  and  repent- 
ance are  required  in  the  Scriptures  for  salvation,  but 
will  mfants  be  damned  because  they  can  not  exercise 
these  ?  It  is  required  in  the  Scriptures  that  "  if  any 
would  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat"  (2  Thess.  iii. 
10),  but  shall  infants  be  starved  because  they  can  not 
work?  If  it  is  required  in  the  Scriptures  "not  to  for- 
sake the  assembling  of  ourselves  together  "  (Heb.  x. 
25),  does,  therefore,  the  brother  who  is  prevented  by 
sickness,  or  other  cause,  from  going  to  the  house  of 
the  Lord,  sin  against  this  command  ?  Well,  the 
Scriptures  require  repentance  and  faith  in  order  to 
baptism.  But  of  whom  do  they  require  these  ?  The 
answer  plainly  is,  they  require  repentance  and  faith 
only  of  those  who  are  capable  of  exercising  them,  just 
as  the  law  of  circumcision  required  "  the  keeping  of 
the  whole  law  "  of  him  who  was  capable  of  doing  it, 
and  still  circumcised  the  infant.  Now,  the  logic  (?) 
of  our  opponents  is   on  this  wise:     "The  Scriptures 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  75 

require  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptism;  but 
infants  have  not  faith  and  repentance  ;  therefore,  they 
are  not  to  be  baptized."  The  sophistry  in  this  is  man- 
ifest. The  Scriptures  require  laith  and  repentance 
only  of  aduhs,  just  as  they  required  obedience  to  the 
law  only  of  adults  in  order  to  circumcision.  Now,  a 
universal  rule  of  logic  is  this  :  "  There  must  never  be 
more  in  the  conclusion  than  there  is  in  the  premises 
from  which  it  is  drawn ;  "  and  the  reason  assigned  for 
this  is  self-evident.  "  Because,"  say  the  authorities, 
"  the  conclusion  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  premises." 

The  logic  of  our  opponents  on  this  subject  stands 
thus,  when  thrown  into  syllogistic  form :  The  Scrip- 
tures require  faith  and  repentance  of  adults  in  order 
to  baptism;  but  infants  can  not  have  these;  therefore, 
infants  are  not  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  Thus,  we 
have  adults  in  the  major  premise,  and  infants  in  the 
conclusion.  This,  as  all  must  see,  sets  at  defiance  all 
the  recognized  rules  of  reasoning.  But  to  this  the 
theory  of  our  opponents  must  come  in  every  attempt 
to  combat  the  facts  of  this  case.  Having  now  dis- 
posed of  the  usual  fallacies  which  characterize  the  ob- 
jections to  infant  baptism,  we  will  resume  the  argu- 
ment. 

In  the  commission,  Matt,  xxviii.  20,  Christ  said 
to  the  Apostles :  "  Teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."     Let  us 


76  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

now  examine  some  of  the  things  which  Jesus  had 
''  commanded  "  his  Apostles  with  reference  to  infants 
and  his  kingdom,  which  "things  "  they  in  turn  were 
to  "  teach  "  to  those  proselyted  to  Christ. 

In  Matt.  xix.  14  an  opportunity  was  furnished  for 
the  Savior  to  announce  the  relation  of  infants  to  his 
kingdom.  He  said  :  "  Suffer  little  children,  and  for- 
bid them  not,  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  The  Savior  made  this  declara- 
tion to  define  the  relation  of  infants  to  his  kingdom, 
and  thus  assign  the  reason  why  they  should  not  be 
kept  from  him.  Their  relation  is  that  of  subjects; 
they  are  citizens  in  his  kingdom,  and  as  such  they 
stand  in  a  saved  relation  to  him,  alike  with  a  regene- 
rated adult.  When  adults  are  "  born  again,"  and 
made  recipients  of  all  the  blessings  of  atoning  love, 
their  relation  to  Christ  is  expressed  by,  and  compre- 
hended in,  the  statement,  "  Now,  therefore,  ye  are  no 
more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens  with 
the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God."  (Eph.  ii.  19.) 

Such  is  also  the  statement  with  reference  to  infants 
— "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Now,  Christ 
had  commanded  these  Apostles  to  let  "little  children 
come  to  him,"  and  in  the  commission  he  tells  them 
to  teach  all  things  whatsoever  he  had  commanded 
them,  including  necessarily  the  bringing  of  little  child- 
ren to  him.     This  can  not  mean  anything  but  the  re- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  yy 

cognizing  of  their  covenant  relation  to  Christ,  and 
the  giving  to  them  the  token — baptism — of  that  rela- 
tion. 

Again:  Luke  ix.  47,48:  Jesus  "took  a  child,  and 
set  him  by  him,  and  said  unto  them,  Whosoever  shall 
receive  this  child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me."  Mark 
ix.  T^6,  says  Jesus  "  took  him  in  his  arms,"  showing 
that  it  was  an  infant  child.  Now,  what  does  Jesus 
here  command  with  reference  to  this  child  ?  It  is, 
that  his  people  shall  receive  it  in  his  name.  This 
must  imply  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  child 
is  Christ's  subject,  and  treat  him  accordingly.  But 
would  that  be  a  recognition  of  this  fact,  which  frown- 
ingly  ignores  that  the  child  is  a  subject  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  and  forcibly  withholds  from  it  the  badge — 
baptism — of  citizenship  ?  Verily  not.  In  these  pass- 
ages two  things  are  made  manifest : 

(i)  In  Matt.  xix.  14,  the  rights  of  infants  are  as- 
serted— "Of  such  is  the  kmgdom  of  heaven."  They 
are  citizens — subjects. 

(2)  In  Luke  ix.  48,  the  duty  of  the  Church  with 
reference  to  them  is  announced — receive  them  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  impHes,  beyond  doubt, 
their  baptism. 

Men  educated  as  we  have  seen  these  Apostles  were, 
with  infant  baptism  and  infant  membership  in  the 
Church  prevalent  from  one  limit  of  Israel  to  the  other, 


78  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

could  not  have  misunderstood  such  declarations  as 
these.  Hence  their  practice  in  baptizing  families,  and 
hence  the  fathers,  again  and  again,  refer  to  the  Apos- 
tles as  authority  for  infant  baptism. 

With  these  facts  before  us,  we  have  no  hesitation  in 
affirming  that  if  anything  is  made  obligatory  upon  us 
by  the  law  of  Christ's  kingdom — by  direct  command 
— it  is  the  baptism  of  infants.  The  right  of  pious  wo- 
men at  the  Lord's  table,  though  unquestionable,  has 
not  half  the  testimony  in  its  favor  that  infant  baptism 
has.  Their  rights  in  "the  kingdom  of  God"  are 
clearly  defined  (Matt.  xix.  14) — they  are  citizens;  the 
duty  of  the  Church  in  reference  to  them  is  explicitly 
stated  (Luke  ix.  48) — receive  them  in  the  name  of 
Jesus;  and  the  commission  to  disciple  and  baptize 
"the  nations"  (Matt,  xxviii.  19)  brings  the  positive 
command  to  baptize  them.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to 
stand  up  in  the  face  of  God's  will,  as  thus  plainly  de- 
clared, and  repudiate  their  rights  in  "  the  kingdom  of 
heaven." 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  79 


ARTICLE     VI. 

THE    ORGANIC    LAW    OF    GOD's    KINGDOM ABRAHAMIC 

COVENANT INFANTS    PROVIDED    FOR. 

An  appeal  to  constitutional  provisions  is  always  ul- 
timate and  decisive  in  matters  in  dispute.  If  the 
rights  of  my  child  as  a  member  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Kentucky  should  be  contested,  I  have  only  to  ap- 
peal to  the  Constitution  of  the  State — the  organic  law 
of  the  Commonwealth — and  determine,  by  its  deci- 
sions, the  questions  at  issue.  Equally  true  is  it  in  the 
"  Commonwealth  of  Israel."  It  has  its  organic  law — 
a  Constitution  broad  as  the  purposes  of  God  in  re- 
demption, and  as  enduring  as  time.  Its  provisions 
are  plainly  written,  and  were  illustrated  by  centuries 
of  divine  and  inspired  administration.  To  it  we  con- 
fidently appeal.  We  propose  here  to  establish  that 
the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham  is  the 
universal  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  it  makes  special 
provision  for  infants.  We  thus  state  in  advance  our 
purpose,  that  the  reader  may  follow  intelligently.  If, 
now,  we  establish,  that  this  covenant  is  the  great  con- 
stitutional law  of  the  Church,  that  it  is  never  to  be 
abrogated,  and  that  it  provides  for  the  admission  of 
infants  into  the  Church,  and  that  they  shall  have  the 


8o  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

token  of  that  covenant  and  Church  relation,  we  shall 
have  established  the  rightfulness  of  infant  baptism  by 
an  appeal  to  an  unalterable  constitutional  provision. 
It  may  be  necessary  at  this  point,  before  entering 
more  fully  upon  the  examination  of  this  divine  consti- 
tution, to  advert  to  some  matters  which  our  opponents 
seem  to  think  are  insuperable  obstacles  in  the  w^ay  of 
our  argument  upon  the  covenant.  They  affirm  that 
that  covenant  was  local  and  temporary^  that  it  had  ex- 
clusive reference  to  the  lineal  descendants  of  Abraham, 
and  that  it  contemplated  no  higher  good  than  the 
possession  of  Canaan  and  secular  prosperity.  Hence, 
they  are  fond  of  denominating  both  the  covenant  it- 
self and  everything  appertaining  to  it  as  a  "fleshy  in- 
stitution." Now,  we  are  free  to  admit  that  some  of  its 
provisions  were  local  and  temporary.  But  it  can  not 
be  ignored  that  its  great  central  features  were  spiritual^ 
Ufiiversal,  and  eternal.  Let  us  illustrate  our  position 
here.  On  the  15th  of  June,  12 15,  the  barons  of  Eng- 
land extorted  from  John,  at  Runnymede,  the  Magna 
Charta  Libertatum.  Many  of  its  provisions  were  local 
and  temporaty — they  passed  away  when  the  special 
want  had  been  met  for  which  they  were  framed.  Such 
were  the  "  checks  upon  the  forest  laws,  feudal  tenures," 
&c.  But  not  so  with  the  39th  article  of  Magna  Char- 
ta. It  reads :  "  Let  no  freeman  be  imprisoned,  or 
disseized,  or  outlawed,  or  in   any  manner  injured   or 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  8l 

proceeded  against  by  us,  otherwise  tlian  by  the  legal 
judgment  of  his  peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land.  We 
shall  sell,  delay,  or  deny  right  or  justice  to  none." 
Here  were  the  "  writ  of  habeas  corpus^'  and  "  trial  by 
jury."  While  other  provisions  of  that  Charta  met  the 
special  Avants  for  which  they  were  framed  and  then 
fell  into  desuetude,  this  article  has  survived  the  lapse 
of  centuries,  the  changes  of  administration,  and  the 
tread  of  revolutions.  The  thrones  of  Charles  I.  and 
James  I.  crumbled  into  irretrievable  ruin  ;  new  names 
have  appeared  upon  the  rolls  of  royalty ;  new  laws, 
customs,  &c.,  have  come  and  gone  in  the  history  of 
England,  yet  that  39th  article  of  MagJia  Charta  has 
survived  the  wreck  and  changes  of  these  centuries, 
and  will  hold  on  in  its  supremacy  as  long  as  English 
liberty  shall  be  prized,  either  in  the  old  or  new  world. 
So  with  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham. It  contained  items  local  and  temporary^  such 
as  the  "  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan,"  a  "  nu- 
merous posterity,"  &c.,  &c.  These  provisions  were 
realized  in  the  millions  of  Hebrews,  Ishmaelites, 
and  others  who  descended  from  Abraham  ;  in  a  fifteen 
years'  residence  in  the  promised  land,  &c.,  and  then 
these  provisions  passed  away.  But  the  great  central 
features  of  this  compact  were  "confirmed  in  Christ," 
and  established  as  the  Constitution  of  God's  kingdom 
or  Church  forever.  We  propose  in  the  following  dis- 
6 


82  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

cussion  to  make  this  truth  perfectly  obvious.  To  this 
end  we  affirm  :  (i)  Thai  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham  is  universal  in  its  bearings  and  benejits. 
This  can  not  be  said  of  any  other  covenant  which  God 
ever  made  with  man.  £.  g. — The  covenant  of  works 
made  with  Adam  ceased  when  he  fell ;  the  covenant 
of  safety  with  Noah  extended  not  to  the  antediluvians, 
and  can  not  be  said,  in  any  proper  sense,  to  affect  us; 
the  covenant  at  Sinai  lasted  only  1481  years,  and 
ceased  upon  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  ;  and  the  cov- 
enant of  royalty  with  David  fell  with  his  house.  This 
exhausts  the  Bible  covenants,  and  shows  that  of  none 
but  that  of  Abraham  could  it  be  affirmed  that  they 
were  universal'm  their  bearing  and  benefits.  Let  us, 
therefore,  examine  the  evidences  for  the  universality 
of  the  benefits  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  Gal.  iii. 
16.  ''  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  prom- 
ises made.  He  saith  not,  and  to  seeds,  as  of  many, 
but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christy  I  ad- 
mire Tyndale's  translation  of  this  and  the  following 
verse,  made  in  1534,  more  than  any  I  have  seen,  aad 
wdll  give  it  in  the  quaint  orthography  of  that  period  : 
"  To  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made. 
He  seyth  not,  in  the  seeds,  as  in  many ;  but  in  thy  sede, 
as  in  one,  which  is  Christ.  This  I  saye,  that  the  laws 
which  beganne  afterwards,  beyond  iiii.  c.  and  xxx. 
yeares  [430  years]  doth  not  disannul  the  testament  that 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  83 

was  confermediafore  of  God  unto  Christward,  to  make 
the  promes  of  none  effect."  Now,  let  the  tollowing 
items  in  this  statement  of  the  Apostle  be  examined, 
which  show  the  spirituality  and  universality  ot  this 
covenant :  "  Not  to  seeds  as  of  many  i^  i.  e.,  this  cov- 
enant was  not  made  simply  with  reference  to  Abra- 
ham's natural  progeny,  such  as  Isaac,  Jacob,  &c. ; 
but  it  was  with  reference  to  Christ,  through  whom  "all 
the  nations  of  the  earth"  were  to  be  "blessed." 
Hence  it  was  made  with  reference  to  "  thy  seed,  which 
is  Christ."  Therefore,  the  covenant  could  no  more 
be  local  and  temporary  than  Christ,  as  an  atonement 
for  sin,  could  be  local  and  temporary.  That  he  was 
not  such  is  affirmed  in  every  declaration  of  Scripture 
concerning  him.  He  "  loved  the  world,"  and  is  "  as 
a  lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  This 
covenant  with  Abraham,  therefore,  is  as  really  imiver- 
sal  in  its  bearings  and  benefits  as  is  the  atoning  death 
of  Christ  in  whom  it  was  confirmed,  and  concerning 
whom  it  was  made.  No  provision  of  it,  consequent- 
ly, can  ever  cease  to  be  in  force  while  Christ  is  a  Sa- 
vior. Strike  from  its  place  as  the  Constitution  of  God's 
Church  this  covenant  and  you  rend  away  the  last 
beam  in  the  edifice  of  human  salvation. 

We  proceed  to  notice  (U):  That  this  covenant  is 
unalterable — it  can  never  be  changed  or  abrogated. 

A  little  reflection  will  make  this   manifest.     The 


84  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Apostle  argues  the  truth  of  it  from  \\\'^nahire  of  cove- 
nants  in  general.  He  says :  "  Though  it  be  but  a 
man's  covenant,  yet  if  it  be  conJi?'??ied,  no  man  disan- 
nuleth  or  addeth  thereto."  (Gal.  iii.  15.)  The  illus- 
tration is  as  follows  :  NoJie  but  the  parties  to  a  cove- 
nant can  change  or  annul  it  when  it  has  been  con- 
firmed or  ratified.  Either  of  the  parties  may  make 
covenants  with  other  parties  afterward,  but  they  can 
insert  no  provision  which  would  annul  or  weaken  any 
item  in  the  covenant  already  ratified.  Now,  in  this 
Abrahamic  covenant  God  was  one  of  the  parties  and 
Abraham  the  other.  They  never  came  together  as 
covenanting  parties  after  this  covenant  was  ratified. 
"  Four  hundred  and  thirty  years  "  afterward  God  and 
Moses  came  together  as  covenanting  parties  at  Sinai, 
but  Abraham,  one  of  the  parties  to  the  former  cove- 
nant, was  absent,  hence  no  clause  could  be  inserted 
in  the  Sinaitic  covenant  which  would  clash  with  that 
made  with  Abraham.  Hence,  says  the  xApostle: 
"And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed 
before  of  God  in  Christ,  \i.  e.,  the  Abrahamic]  the 
law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after, 
can  7iot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise 
of  none  effect."  (Gal.  iii.  17.)  The  facts,  then,  con- 
cerning these  covenants  are  simply  as  follows  :  The 
one  made  with  Abraham  was  191 1  years  before  Christ 
was  born  ;  430  years  after  that  covenant  was  ratified, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  85 

/.  <?.,  1 48 1  years  before  Christ  was  born,  God  made  a 
covenant  with  Moses  at  Sinai  concerning  the  tempo- 
ral affairs  of  the  Hebrews  ;  no  transaction  in  this  cov- 
enant could  possibly  set  aside  any  provision  in  that 
made  with  Abraham  without  a  flagrant  disregard  of  the 
very  nature  of  a  covenant;  hence  these  two  cove- 
nants ran  along  side  by  side  for  1481  years,  when  the 
Sinaitic  expired  by  limitation,  and  the  Abrahamic 
swept  out  over  all  nations,  and  over  all  time,  holding 
Jesus  Christ  as  its  central  figure.  Hence  the  great 
truth  is  established,  that  710  transactions  made  with 
Moses  or  any  one  else,  after  this  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham was  ratified,  could  set  aside  afiy  provision  of  that 
covenant.  I  beg  leave  to  submit  here  a  most  remarka- 
ble concession  upon  this  point,  made  by  the  most  distin- 
guished opponent  of  infant  baptism  this  country  ever 
had.  I  mean  Alexander  Campbell.  It  is  most  man- 
ifest that  in  the  following  statement  he  was  so  hot  in 
pursuit  of  a  Jeiv  that  he  forgot  infant  baptism,  else 
he  never  would  have  written  these  lines.  He  is 
commenting  upon  Gal.  iii.  He  says:  i.  "  In  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  which  was  solemnly  ratified, 
God  had  promised  salvaiio?i  to  the  Gentiles,  before  the 
nation  of  Israel  existed,  or  the  national  covefiant  was 
instituted.  From  this  fact  Paul  argues  that  the  Gen- 
tiles should  not  hearken  to  the  Judaisers;  that  they 
should  not  practice   any  of  the  Jewish   peculiarities. 


86  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

The  gospel  which  he  now  proclaimed  to  the  Gentiles 
was  substantially  announced  to  Abraham  when  first 
called. 

"  2.  But  after  expatiating  upon  this  fact  and  con- 
firming it  with  other  considerations,  the  Apostle  founds 
his  argument  upon  the  nature  of  covenants  in  general 
among  men,  and  from  one  promise  made  to  Abra- 
ham. It  is  notorious  that  when  a  covenant  between 
two  parties  is  ratified,  no  person,  except  the  parties 
themselves,  can  disannul  it.  Now,  God,  one  of  the 
parties  in  the  covenant,  made  the  promises  to  Abra- 
ham and  the  seed  of  Abraham.  This  seed  was  a 
unity;  not  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  but  one  of 
them,  namely,  the  Messiah.  This  covejtanf,  then,  was 
ratified  with  Abraham  concerning  the  Messiah  and  un- 
alterably settled. 

"  3.  Consequently,  the  law,  or  covenant  wdth  the 
whole  nation  of  Israel,  430  years  after  this  time,  could 
not  disannul  the  promise  in  another  covenant,  con- 
cerning persons  not  present,  and,  therefore,  no  party 
in  that  covenant. 

"4.  Here  the  Jew  is  introduced  with  his  objection. 
'To  what  purpose,  then,  was  the  law?'  Paul  shows 
that  it  was  introduced  for  another  purpose  than  to  be- 
stow or  secure  the  inheritance  promised  430  before  it 
was  promulgated ;  and,  from  the  circumstances  of  its 
promulgation,  completes  his  argument  not  yet  brought 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  87 

to  a  legitimate  close.  This  law,  or  covenant,  was, 
says  he,  introduced  by  angels,  through  the  hands  of  a 
mediator,  and  could  not  affect  the  promises  of  the  cov- 
enant with  Abraham,  for  this  plain  reason,  that  the 
parties  to  that  covenant,  430  years  ratified,  were  not 
present.  And  the  covenant  at  Sinai  was  ordained  in 
the  hands  of  a  mediator,  namely,  Moses.  There  was 
no  mediator  between  God  and  Abraham,  which  proves 
the  superiority  of  that  coveJiani  to  the  Sinaitic.  But 
the  stress  rests  upon  this  fact,  that  this  Moses,  this 
mediator,  was  not  one  of  the  parties  of  that  covenant 
concerning  the  seed.  God,  it  is  true,  was  one  of 
them ;  but  the  covenant  could  not  be  disannulled, 
'though  it  were  but  a  man's,'  unless  both  the  parties 
were  present.  .  .  .  But  God  was  one  of  the  par- 
ties, and  might  make  with  the  fleshly  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, by  means  of  a  mediator,  any  covenant  he  pleased, 
which  would  ?iot  coimtervail  any  item  in  the  former. 
But  as  he  was  one  party,  he  could  not  insert  one 
clause  in  the  Sinaitic  covenant  which  would  clash  with 
that  already  ratified;  so  could  not  by  any  promise,  or 
after  act,  exclude  the  nations  of  the  earth  from  partici- 
pating in  the  blessings  of  the  promised  seed r  (Appen- 
dix to  N.  T.  of  1828,  p.  435.)  Thus  it  i?  acknowl- 
edged that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  is  the  univer- 
sal covenant  of  grace,  that  no  subsequent  legislation  or 
covenant  could  annul  one  item  contained  in  it ;  and 
hence,  it  can  never  be  abrogated. 


SS  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

I  will  simply  add,  that  this  covenant  alone,  of  all  the 
covenants  made,  was  ratified  or  confirmed  in  Christ, 
(Gal.  iii.  17.) 

We  have,  therefore,  in  this,  the  Magna  Charta  of  the 
Church — the  Constitution  of  God's  kingdom.  It  can 
never  be  annulled  while  the  promise  of  salvation 
through  Christ  is  made  to  humanity;  "no  item"  of  it, 
says  Mr.  Campbell,  can  be  annulled  by  any  subse- 
quent covenant. 

Now,  suppose  that  we  appeal  to  this  divine  Consti- 
tution to  ascertain  the  rights  of  infants  in  the  Church 
of  God.  We  turn  to  Genesis  xvii.  1-14,  where  this 
covenant  is  recorded,  and  we  find  that  infants  at  the 
tenderest  age  were  to  be  brought  to  God  and  the 
token  of  the  covenant  given  to  them.  When  was  this 
law  of  the  covenant  abrogated  ?  We  answer.  Never. 
Is  that  covenant  in  force  io-day  as  truly  as  when  made 
with  Abraham  ?  We  have  seen  that  it  is,  and  that 
even  A.  Campbell  declared  as  much.  If,  then,  that 
covenant  is  noiv  in  full  force,  and  if  this  law  of  it  with 
reference  to  infants  has  never  been  annulled,  as  we 
have  seen  it  has  noi^  and  could  not  be,  then  does  the 
unalterable  Constitution  of  God's  Church  as  impera- 
tively demand  that  infants  be  brought  into  his  Church 
now,  and  the  token  thereof  given  to  them,  as  it  did  in 
the  days  of  Abraham.  There  is  no  escape  from  this. 
Our  opponents  feel  the  crushing  force  of  it,  and  fly  to 
ridiculous  cavils.     We  will  notice  them  in  due  time. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  89 

Here  we  plant  our  banner.  Here  is  the  Constitution 
of  God's  Church.  Here  is  fundamental,  primordial, 
law  for  infant  baptism  and  Church  membership.  Let 
our  opponents  show  when  this  was  repealed,  or  how 
in  the  nature  of  the  case  //  could  be  repealed;  and  if 
they  fail  to  do  so,  then  let  them  cease  their  war  upon 
God's  appointment. 

The  intelhgent  opponents  of  infant  baptism  never 
fail  to  exhibit  the  utmost  alarm  at  this  point,  and  they 
have  accordingly  tortured  themselves  in  the  effort  to 
bring  forward  something  to  break  the  force  of  this  ar- 
gument. We  shall  here  examine  their  cavils — better 
than  tkat  we  can  not  characterize  them,  (i.)  It  is 
objected  by  them  that  the  appointment  of  circum- 
cision, and  consequently  infant  church-membership 
(Gen.  xvii.)  was  in  the  year  of  the  world  2107;  and 
that  the  covenant  concerning  the  Messiah  (Gen.  xxii.) 
was  in  the  year  2141;  that,  consequently,  this  "  cove- 
nant of  circumcision,"  as  they  express  it,  was  separated 
from  that  covenant  which  was  "confirmed  in  Christ" 
by  about  thirty-four  years,  and  was,  therefore,  no  part 
of  it.  This  is  a  mere  cavil,  and  one  ot  comparatively 
recent  origin.  It  has  no  foundation  in  fact.  The 
covenant  with  Abraham  is  a  development.  It  was 
not  made  as  a  whole  at  any  one  time  or  place.  It  be- 
gan when  God  called  Abraham  from  Ur  of  the  Chal- 
dees  (Gen.  xi.),  was  resumed  upon  the  separation  of 


9©  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Abraham  and  Lot  (Gen.  xiii.),  was  again  taken  up  in 
Gen.  xvii.,  and  was  then  broken  off  until  the  events 
narrated  in  Gen.  xvii,  and  was  resumed  and  com- 
pleted at  the  offering  of  Isaac.  (Gen.  xxii.)  It  is 
the  sheerest  caviling  imaginable  to  take  these  several 
stages  in  the  development  of  this  covenant,  and  out  of 
them  attempt  to  carve  three  or  four  covenants.  A 
Rabbi  in  Campbellism,  and  perhaps  one  of  the  most 
scholarly  men  they  have  (President  Milligan),  virtually 
ignores  this  dodge  of  his  brethren.  He  says  :  "  In  Gen. 
xvii.  2,  4,  7,  the  word  covenant  has  reference  to  both 
the  families  of  Abraham,  and  it  is  simply  equivalent  to 
the  twofold  and  somewhat  amplified /r^w/j-^  iJiat  God 
had  made  to  him  before  he  left  Ur  of  C ha/dee ^ 
(Scheme  of  Redemption,  p.  76.)  On  page  79  he 
speaks  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  as  a  development 
from  the  call  of  Abraham  in  Ur.  When  their  own 
positions  are  thus  destroyed  by  their  own  friends  we 
need  not  pause  to  argue  against  them.  You  have  only 
to  read  one  opponent  of  infant  baptism  against  an- 
other when  on  this  question.  There  has  never  been 
any  union  among  them  on  this  question,  except  in 
their  unreasoning  opposition.  We  confidently  affirm, 
in  view  of  the  above  facts,  that  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, as  recorded  from  Gen.  xii.  to  xxii.,  is  07ie. 

Again  (2.):   It  is  objected  that   God  had  promised 
by  Jeremiah  (xxxi.  31-35)  that  he  would  "make  a  new 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


91 


covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house 
of  Judah,"  and  that  St.  Paul  reiterates  the  same 
promise  (Heb.  viii.  8),  and  then  it  is  assumed  that  this 
is  a  covenant  which  is  to 'take  the  place  of  that  made 
with  Abraham.  Now,  we  have  clearly  seen  that  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  could  not  be  "  disaanulled  " 
without  a  flagrant  disregard  of  the  nature  of  a  cove- 
nant, and  that  Mr.  Campbell  so  argues.  Yet  our  op- 
ponents, in  their  desperation,  seize  upon  such  radically 
erroneous  assumptions  in  the  face  of  the  teachings  of 
their  own  bi other  Campbell,  not  to  mention  the  Apos- 
tle Paul.  This  is  done  because  they  think  some  popu- 
lar effect  in  their  favor  can  be  made  out  of  the  expres- 
sions, "new  covenant,"  &c.  We  will  meet  them  here. 
And  (i)  if  it  could  be  shown  that  God  intended  a 
"new  covenant"  by  what  is  said  Jer.  xxxi.  31,  and 
Heb.  viii.  8,  it  has  already  been  demonstrated  that 
though  a  thousand  "  new  covenants  "  might  have  been 
made  after  that  with  Abraham,  still  the  very  nature  of 
covenants  would  forbid  either  the  insertion  of  one 
item  which  would  have  clashed  with  any  provision  in 
that  ratified  with  Abraham,  or  the  annulling  by  the 
"  new  covenant  "  of  any  stipulation  in  the  Abrahamic. 
For  the  parties  not  being  present,  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant was  forever  beyond  the  possibility  of  change  or 
amendment.  We  might  admit,  therefore,  all  our  op- 
ponents say  about   "  a  new  covenant,"  and  it  ca7i  riot 


92  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

affect  our  position.  Until  they  show  where  God  and 
Abraham  came  together  and  "  annulled "  infant 
church-membership  or  anything  else  in  that  covenant, 
it  can  not  be  made  to  appear  that  any  subsequent  cov- 
enant, with  entirely  different  parties,  effected  this.  To 
talk,  therefore,  of  "  new  covenants "  as  they  do  is 
simply  to  delude  themselves  and  those  who  follow 
their  teachings. 

But  (2)  our  opponents  use  the  expressions,  ^^  old 
covenant "  and  "  7iew  covenant,"  as  found  in  Jer. 
xxxi.  and  Heb.  viii.,  in  an  utterly  contradictory  sense 
to  that  in  which  these  inspired  writers  use  them.  Thus, 
our  opponents  mean  by  "  old  covenant "  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant ;  and  by  "  fieiv  covenant "  they  mean 
the  covenant  of  salvation  which  was  confirmed  in 
Christ.  Now,  the  simple  truth  is,  that  by  "  old  cove- 
nant," which  was  "  to  vanish  away,"  the  Apostle 
means  the  Sinaitic  covenant,  as  any  one  can  see  by 
reading  the  eighth  and  ninth  chapters  of  Hebrews. 
There  the  ''^fz-i-/ covenant  "  and  the  ^' old''  covenant 
are  one  and  the  same,  and  there  designated  that  cove- 
nant which  had  a  worldly  sanctuary — "  the  taberna- 
cle," "  the  candlestick,"  "the  table"  and  "  shew  bread," 
"  the  holy  of  holies,"  the  "  golden  censer,"  and  what- 
ever else  pertained  to  the  Levitical  ritual  given  at 
Sinai.  This  is  called  by  Paul  "///(?  old''  covenant* 
The  "  new  covenant,"  as  used  by  Paul  and  Jeremiah, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  93 

is  the  Abrahainic  covenant,  which  was  confirmed  in 
Christ,  and  is  called  the  "  7iew  covenant "  because  it 
was  never  to  become  a?itiqiiated  like  the  Sinaitic. 
Now,  when  writing  upon  other  topics,  our  opponents 
themselves  have  admitted  all  this,  and  thus  destroyed 
with  their  own  hands  their  arguments  upon  the  '■'  7iew 
covenant." 

I  quote  on  this  head  fi-om  Mr.  Campbell's  Appen- 
dix to  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  1828, 
page  432.  He  says  :  "  The  term  new  is  added  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  the  old  cove?iafit,  that  is,  the  dispensa- 
tio?i  of  Moses.  .  .  .  The  tzao  covenants  are  always 
in  Scripture  the  two  dispensations  or  religious  institu- 
tions ;  that  under  Moses  is  the  old.''  Also,  Milhgan's 
Sche?ne  of  Redemption,  p.  75.  "  This  [the  Abrahamic 
covenant]  is  the  same  which  is  also  f-eqiiently  called 
the  new  covejiant,  and  which  is  fully  developed  in  the 
New  Testament."  Thus  out  of  their  own  mouth  we 
condemn  their  position.  Milligan  and  Campbell  af- 
firm that  the  ^' new  cove.nant^^  is  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant, and  consequently  not  a  different  covenant  which 
"disannuls"  it,  and  that  the  ^^ old  covenant^'  is  the 
Sinaitic,  made  430  years  after  that  with  Abraham. 
Nothing  need  be  added.  I  will  simply  say,  in  con- 
cluding this  matter,  that  the  expression.  "  /  will  make 
a  new  covenaiit^'  in  Heb.  viii.  8,  does  not  mean  to 
make  new,  de  novo,  or  to  originate.     It  simply   means 


94 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


to  complete.  The  Greek  word  is  avvTeXeau) — sunteleso^ 
which  Campbell  translates  in  that  verse  thus  :  "  /  will 
complete  a  iieiv  institution  with  the  house  of  Israel ^^ 
&c.  It  is  also  defined  by  the  best  lexicons.  The 
meaning  simply  is,  that  the  promise  of  a  redeeming 
Messiah,  made  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  should 
be  completed,  or  fulfilled,  by  the  coming  of  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ.  Thus  their  cavils  melt  and  disappear 
and  we  are  left  with  the  broad,  eternal  Constitution  of 
God's  Church — the  covenant  with  Abraham — provid- 
ing for  infant  membership  in  the  Church,  which  ne- 
cessarily involves  their  baptism. 

We  might  safely  leave  the  whole  matter  here,  de- 
manding of  our  opponents  to  show  when  this  law  was 
abrogated — when  this  Constitution  was  so  amended  or 
changed  as  to  exclude  infanis  from  the  privileges  of 
the  Church.  The  onus probandi  here  turns  upon  th  em 
But  we  shall  proceed  to  show  that  the  Church  founded 
upon  this  divine  Constitution  never  failed  to  recognize 
the  eligibility  of  infants  to  the  privileges  of  the  Churchy 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  95 


ARTICLE     VI  I. 

BAPTISM    IN  THE  ROOM    OF    CIRCUMCISION ST.    PETER 

DECLARES    THE     CONTINUED    ELIGIBILITY    OF    CHIL- 
DREN— UNITY    AND    CONTINUANCE  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

There  are  two  points  in  connection  with  the  argu- 
ment from  the  covenant  of  grace,  developed  in  our 
last,  which  we  will  notice : 

(i.)  Circumcision,  which,  under  the  former  econ- 
omy, was  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Church,  and 
the  token  of  the  covenant,  is,  under  the  present 
economy,  substituted  by  baptism. 

Let  the  facts  already  established  be  remembered, 
and  it  will  be  seen  that  the  above  statement  is  of  itself 
conclusive  in  proof  of  infant  baptism.  We  have  al- 
ready shown  that  that  covenant,  which  is  universal, 
eternal,  unalterable — the  Constitution  of  the  Church 
to-day — provides  for  the  admission  of  infants  at  the 
tenderest  age.  According  to  it,  the  Church  for  cen- 
turies received  infants  as  members.  Now,  suppose  it 
can  be  established  that  baptism  takes  the  place  in  this 
covenant  which  circumcision  formerly  occupied,  with 
no  change  of  subjects  specified.  Will  not  that  demand 
infant  baptism  as  infallibly  as  infant  circumcision  was 
demanded  before  this  change  in  the  rite  ?     We  would 


g6  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

observe  here,  that  to  substitute  baptism  for  circumci- 
sion would  be  no  violation  of  covenant  rights.  It  is 
very  evident  that  among  other  offices  of  circumcision 
in  the  Church,  it  had  a  typical  reference  to  the  prom- 
ised "  Seed  " — Christ,  and,  consequently,  his  coming 
was  the  limit  of  the  continuance  of  that  rite.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  Apostles  desisted  unanimously  from  the 
practice  of  it.  (Acts  xv.)  In  its  relation  to  church 
membership  it  was  simply  "  the  token  "  of  the  cove- 
nant, and,  consequently,  it  was  legitimate  at  any  time 
to  displace  it  by  the  appointment  of  another  "  token," 
and  still  the' great  covenant  law  not  be  affected. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  the  same  change  in 
the  outward  form  of  both  sacraments  in  the  Church 
did  take  place.  For  example,  under  the  former  econ- 
omy, the  sacrament  relating  to  atonement — namely, 
the  Passover,  had  as  its  outward  form  the  paschal  lamb, 
unleavened  bread,  bitter  herbs  and  wine  (which  latter 
was  introduced  at  some  unknown  time.)  Now,  when 
this  sacrament  of  atonement  was  adjusted  to  the  pres- 
ent economy,  the  Saviour  threw  off  the  lamb  and  the 
bitter  herbs,  and  took  the  remaining  items — namely, 
bread  and  wine,  and  under  these  forms  perpetuated 
the  sacrament  of  atonement.  This  change  in  the  out- 
ward form  did  not  affect  the  great  law  of  atonement. 

In  like  manner,  the  sacrament  relating  to  Church 
membership — namely,  circumcision,  had  as  its  outward 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  97 

form  a  prescribed  cutting  in  the  flesh,  and,  as  has  been 
abundantly  proven  in  a  former  number,  baptism, 
though,  Hke  the  "  wine  "  in  the  Passover,  the  time  of 
its  mtroduction  is  not  definitely  known.  When  this 
sacrament  relating  to  Church  membership  was  ad- 
justed to  the  present  economy,  the  Savior  threw  oft 
the  cutting  in  the  flesh,  and  took  the  remaining  item — 
namely,  baptism,  and  under  this  form  perpetuated  this 
sacrament,  without  affecting  the  covenant  law.  In  the 
Hght  of  these  truths,  St.  Paul's  language  (Gal.  iii.  27- 
28),  becomes  luminous.  As  has  already  been  shown? 
when  a  Gentile  family  was  proselyted  under  the  former 
economy,  the  males  were  circumcised  and  baptized, 
and  the  females  were  baptized.  Alluding  to  that  re- 
adjustment of  this  sacrament  which  now  makes  the 
form  of  it  practicable  for  all,  he  says,  "  For  as  many  of 
you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is 
neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor 
female;  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus."  Christ 
has  so  adjusted  the  elements  of  this  sacrament  under 
the  present  economy  as  to  make  it  alike  applicable 
to  all. 

Now,  nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  St.  Paul  al- 
ludes to  this  change  of  baptism   for  circumcision  in 
Col.  ii.  10-12,  "And  ye  are  complete  in  him,  which  is 
the  head  of  all  principality  and  power;  in  whom  also 
7 


9^  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  with- 
out hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ;  buried  with  him 
in  baptism,"  &c.  Here  it  is  manifest  that  circum- 
cision and  baptism  are  used  interchangeably,  and  bap- 
tism is  referred  to  as  Christian  circumcision. 

The  early  writers  in  the  Church  thought  and  wrote 
conformably  to  this  opinion.  Thus,  Justin  Martyr : 
"  And  we,  who  have  approached  God  through  Him, 
have  received  not  carnal,  but  spiritual  circumcision, 
which  Enoch  and  those  like  him  observed.  And  we 
have  received  it  through  baptism,  since  we  were  sin- 
ners, by  God's  mercy ;  and  all  men  may  equally  ob- 
tain it."  (Dialogue  with  Trypho.,  chap.  xHii.)  Chry- 
sostom  says:  "There  was  pain  and  trouble  in  the 
practice  of  Jewish  circumcision;  but  our  circumcision, 
I  mean  the  grace  of  baptism,  gives  cure  without  pain; 
and  this  is  fcrr  infants  as  well  as  men."  We  need  not 
multiply  quotations  here.  It  is  plain  that  the  Church 
from  the  earliest  times  believed  that  baptism  is  in  the 
room  of  circumcision. 

These  facts  established,  and  the  friends  of  infant 
baptism  need  not  travel  an  inch  further  in  the  argu- 
ment. Here  is  the  Constitution  of  the  Church  provid- 
ing for  infant  Church  membership.  For  191 1  years 
the  Church  received  infants,  upon  this  Constitution, 
and  gave  them  the  initiatory  rite  and  token — circum- 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 

cision.  That  Constitution  remains  as  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  Church  to-day,  and  the  circumcision  which, 
according  to  its  provisions,  was  given  to  infants  dur- 
ing nineteen  hundred  years,  is  now  substituted  by  bap- 
tism.    The  conclusion  is  irresistible. 

(2.)  The  second  point  to  be  noticed  is  the  state- 
ment of  the  Apostle  Peter  with  reference  to  the  con- 
tinuation of  these  covenant  privileges  to  children.  On 
the  memorable  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  was  addres- 
sing a  multitude  of  Jews  (Acts  ii.  5),  who  had  been 
educated  to  receive  infants  into  the  Church  and  give 
to  them  the  token  of  covenant  relation.  In  the  course 
of  his  address  to  them  he  said  :  "  For  the  promise  is 
unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are 
afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call."  (V.  39.)  Let  us  now  examine  this  statement 
a  little.  The  phrase,  "  to  you  and  to  your  children," 
means  adults  and  infants.  This  is  indisputable.  The 
word  teknois — children — means,  it  is  true,  posterity, 
but  it  means  infant  as  well  as  adult  posterity,  and  is 
often  restricted  in  its  sense  to  infants.  The  phraseology 
here  agrees  exactly  with  that  in  Gen.  xvii.  7,  "  to  be  a 
God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  While 
"  thy  seed"  was  a  phrase  by  which  the  whole  posterity 
of  Abraham  was  expressed,  it  also  narrowed  itself 
down  so  absolutely  to  infancy  that  it  enjoined  circum- 
cision upon  the  child   eight  days  old.      Let  the  same- 


lOO  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

ness  of  the  phraseology  be  considered.     When  God 
makes  the  covenant  with  Abraham   by  which  infants 
are   brought  into  the   Church,   the   promise  that   he 
makes  is  ''  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed."     When  Peter  at 
Pentecost,  the  very  time  when  it  is  assumed  that  this 
covenant  and  all  things  appertaining  to  it  was  forever 
abrogated,  stood  up  to  proclaim  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
to  the  Jews,  he  said,  "the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to 
your  children."     When  God  said,    "  to  thee,  and  to^ 
thy  seed,"  the  Church  understood  that  infants  were  in- 
cluded, and  for  nineteen   centuries  she  received  them. 
What  else  could  it  mean,  then,   to  Jews,  when  Peter, 
in  the  exact  language  of  the  covenant,  said,  "  to  you, 
and  to    your    children  ?"       Now,    in    both    instances 
(Gen.  xvii.  7,  and  Acts  ii.  39)  this  phrase  stands  con- 
nected with  an  ordinance   by   which   persons  were  to 
be  admitted  into  the  Church.     When  "  to  thee,  and  to 
thy  seed,"  was  said  to  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii.  7),  it  stood 
connected  with  circumcision;  when  "unto  you,  and  to 
your  children,"  was  said  by  Peter,  it  stood  connected 
with   baptism.     This   language   to   Abraham,  in  con- 
nection with  "  the  promise,"  brought  infants  into  the 
Church  for  nineteen   hundred  years.     The  same  lan- 
guage is  now  uttered  in  connection  with    "  the  prom- 
ise "  by  an  inspired  Apostle.     How  would   a  congre- 
gation of  Hebrews,  such  as  that  he  addressed,  under- 
stand it  ?     There  could  be  but  one  meaning,  and  that 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  lOI 

is,  that  infants  are  placed  in  the  same  relation  to  bap- 
tism under  the  present  economy,  that  they  sustained 
to  circumcision  under  the  former  economy.  In  both 
instances  (Gen.  xvii  7,  and  Acts  ii  29),  parents  and 
children  are  united  in  the  same  way.  There  it  is,  "  to 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed ;"  here  it  is,  "  to  you,  and  to 
your  children."  The  promise  in  both  instances  is 
connected  with  the  initiatory  rite  into  the  Church — 
circumcision,  baptism.  In  both  instances  the  ordi- 
nance is  made  to  result  from  the  promise — the  one  is 
set  down  as  a  reason  for  the  other  (Gen.  xvii.  9), 
"Thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant,  therefore,  thou  and 
thy  seed  after  thee ;"  that  is,  because  God  had  given  a 
promise.  So,  in  Acts  ii.  38-39,  "  Repent  and  be  bap- 
tized every  one  of  you  ...  tor  [because]  the 
promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children.''  Children 
are,  therefore,  placed  in  the  same  relation  to  both 
these  ordinances.  From  these  facts  I  deduce  the  fol- 
lowing principle :  When  a  positive  institute  is  con- 
nected with  a  promise,  all  who  are  contained  in  the 
promise  have  a  right  to  the  institute.  In  Gen.  xvii.  a 
positive  institute — circumcision — is  connected  with  a 
promise,  "  to  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed."  All 
mentioned  in  that  promise  were  entitled  to  the  insti- 
tute circumcision.  The  Church  so  understood  it  for 
nineteen  hundred  years.  In  Acts  ii.  38-39  a  positive 
institute — baptism — is  connected  with   a   "promise," 


I02  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

and  children  are  named  in  that  promise.  Therefore, 
they  have  a  right  to  baptism.  Let  our  opponents 
disprove  it  if  they  can.  Let  it  be  remembered  that 
both  Peter  and  his  audience  had  been  educated  in  the 
beUef  of  these  truths,  had  themselves  been  brought 
into  the  Church  in  infancy,  and  no  one  can  reasonably 
doubt  that  both  the  speaker  and  his  hearers  under- 
stood that  infants  were  to  continue  in  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  Church  and  baptism  that  they  had  for- 
merly occupied  to  the  Church  and  circumcision. 

These  points  being  established,  we  shall  now  pro- 
ceed to  demonstrate  the  fact,  that  the  Church  founded 
upon  this  covenant,  and  into  which  infants  were  ad- 
mitted by  the  rite  of  circumcision,  continues  to  this 
day  as  "  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,"  "  the  body  of 
Christ."  The  opponents  of  infant  baptism  know  of 
but  one  method  of  escape  from  the  logic  of  this  fact ; 
and  that  is,  by  one  remorseless  blow,  to  sweep  from 
the  four  thousand  years  preceding  Christ's  nativity 
every  thing  that  has  the  semblance  of  a  Church* 
Their  entire  theory  goes  upon  the  assumption  that 
during  four  thousand  years  the  infinitely  wise  God  was 
experimenting  upon  the  awful  question  of  salvation. 
Immortal  souls  by  the  miUion  were  appearing  upon 
the  stage,  and  then  gliding  into  eternity ;  hell  was 
"  enlarging"  itself;  heaven  hung  black  with  the  storms 
of  wrath,  portending  the  doom  of  sin ;  along  the  fun- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  IO3 

eral  column  of  humanity,  which,  amid  the  blackness 
of  darkness,  was  melting  away  and  disappearing  at  the 
mouth  of  the  grave  continually,  the  anxious  inquiries 
Tolled  from  age  to  age,  ''  If  a  man  die.  shall  he  live 
again  ?"  "  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  ?"  And  still 
He  who  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning  was  experi- 
menting— setting  up  one  economy  and  tearing  down 
another — and  never  reached  the  right  thing,  until,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  four  thousand  years  after  hu- 
manity began  its  march  to  the  grave  I  In  all  those 
sad  centuries  our  opponents  can  see  no  Church  for 
fostering  piety,  no  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sin. 
Elder  Wilkes  says :  "It  is  not  reasonable  that  there 
could  be  remission  of  sins  before  the  shedding  of  that 
blood  on  which  alone  remission  of  sins  depends.  The 
shedding  of  Christ's  blood  is  lor  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  that  blood  takes  its  effect  after  its  shedding,  not 
before.  ...  I  told  you  that  there  was  no  final 
remission  of  sins  under  the  Jewish  economy." 
(Wilkes-Ditzler  Debate,  pp.  59-60.)  All  this  is  ne- 
cessary to  get  rid  of  infant  baptism;  for  whenever  it  is 
made  to  appear  that  God's  Church  did,  according  to 
the  provisions  of  its  unalterable  Constitution,  receive 
infants  then,  and  gave  to  them  the  initiatory  rite,  and 
that  that  Church,  resting  upon  the  same  Constitution, 
is  the  Church  of  God  to-day,  infant  baptism  follows  as 
an  inevitable  consequence.     Hence  the  anxiety,  and 


I04  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

even  desperation,  of  our  opponents  to  get  rid  of  these 
facts.     We  shall  proceed  to  establish  them. 

Our  first  work  will  be  to  show  that  the  Church  of 
God  did  then  exist,  as  really  and  truly  as  it  now  ex- 
ists. Not  that  there  was  a  "fleshly  institution,"  in 
which  "neither  faith  nor  piety  was  contemplated." 
(A.  Campbell,  debate  with  Rice,  p.  309);  but  that  a 
Church,  having  every  essential  fact  and  feature  that 
the  Church  of  Christ  now  possesses,  did  then  exist. 

Then  (i),  there  was  a  Church  centuries  before  "the 
day  of  Pentecost."  Let  us  establish  this  fact,  and 
then  proceed  to  show  its  Christian  character.  Acts 
vii.  37-38  :  "  This  is  that  Moses,  which  said  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God 
raise  up  unto  you  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  me;  him 
shall  ye  hear.  This  is  he,  that  was  in  the  Church  in 
the  wilderness,  with  the  angel  which  spake  to  him  in 
the  Mount  Sinai,  and  with  our  fathers;  who  received 
the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us."  Here,  then,  was 
the  Church,  in  the  days  of  Moses,  who  is  said  to  have 
been  a  member  of  it.  The  fact  that  there  was  a 
Church  then  can  not  be  doubted,  for  inspiration  de- 
clares it.  The  word  rendered  Church  here  is  eKKXrjGLa 
{ekklesid)^  which,  though  sometimes  used  for  a  pro- 
miscuous assembly  (but  when  so  used  is  indicated  as 
having  that  sense  by  the  accompanying  circumstances), 
is  the  word  almost  always  employed  to  signify  God's 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  I05 

separated  people.  It  occurs  115  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  is  translated  "Church"  112  times  out 
of  115.  A  few  examples  of  its  use  will  not  be  out  of 
place.  Matt.  xvi.  18,  "build  my  Church;"  xviii.  17, 
"tell  it  to  the  Church."  Acts  xx.  28,  "feed  the 
Church  of  God."  Rom.  xvi.  16,  "the  Churches  of 
Christ."  ist  Cor.  i.  2,  "unto  the  Church  of  God." 
2d  Cor.  i.  I,  "unto  the  Church  of  God."  Gal.  i.  13, 
"  persecuted  the  Church  of  God."  Eph.  v.  25, 
"  Christ  also  loved  the  Church."  2d  Thess.  i.  4,  "  in 
the  Churches  of  God."  Thus  this  word  is  used 
through  the  whole  New  Testament  to  designate  God's 
separated  people — the  Church  of  Christ.  Thus  it  is 
used  in  the  text  we  have  quoted,  Acts  vii.  37-38. 
What  Stephen,  in  Acts  vii.,  called  the  Church 
{ekklesia),  Paul,  speaking  of  the  same  time  and  cir- 
cumstances, calls  a  "house,"  Heb.  iii.  5.  "Whose 
[  /.  €.,  Christ's  ]  house,"  says  he,  "are  we,  if  we  hold 
fast  the  confidence  and  the  rejoicing  of  the  hope  firm 
unto  the  end,"  Heb.  iii.  6.  This  "  Church,"  then, 
"  in  the  wilderness,"  fifteen  hundred  years  before  "  the 
Pentecost  "  of  Acts  ii.,  in  which  Moses  was  a  member, 
Paul  declares  to  be  Christ's  "  house,"  which  he  thus 
explains  :  "  Whose  house  are  we  "  This  "  Church," 
therefore,  was  the  "house"  of  Christ. 

Having  thus  established   the  fact   that  there  was  a 
"  Church  "  then,  by  all  rules  which  are  relied  on  to 


I06  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

prove  that  there  is  a  Church  now,  let  us  proceed  to 
examine  its  character,  and  ascertain  if  it  had  the  essen- 
tials of  a  Church  of  Christ. 

2.  We  affirm  that  Christ  was  with  that  Church,  and 
known  to  its  members.  That  he  was  with  that  Church 
is  indubitable.  That  is  made  manifest  by  a  text  al- 
ready cited,  viz:  Heb.  iii.  5,  6,  "And  Moses  verily 
was  faithful  in  all  his  house  as  a  servant,  for  a  testi- 
mony ot  those  things  which  were  to  be  spoken  after ; 
but  Christ  as  a  Son  over  his  own  house  ;  whose  house 
are  we,  if  we  hold  fast  the  confidence  and  the  rejoic- 
ing of  the  hope  firm  unto  the  end."  Let  it  be  ob- 
served that  St.  Paul  is,  in  this  chapter,  showing  the 
superiority  of  Christ  over  Moses,  and  he  makes  the 
following  points:  {a.)  Moses  did  not  build  the 
'*  house;"  Christ  did.  {d.)  Moses  was  only  in  the 
"house;"  Christ  was  over  it,  as  its  ruler,  [c.)  Moses 
was  a  servant  in  this  "  house ;"  Christ  was  the  Son 
and  heir.  This  "  house,"  therefore,  which  was  "  the 
Church"  (Acts  vii.  37,  ^S),  which  Moses  was  "in," 
had  Christ  "  over  "  it  as  the  ruler  ol  "  his  own  house." 

But  the  fact  that.  Christ  was  with  this  Church  is 
made  manifest  by  various  other  Scriptures,  some  of 
which  we  give : 

ist  Cor.  X.  4.  Speaking  of  the  "fathers"  who 
"  passed  through  the  sea  "  in  coming  out  of  Egypt, 
Paul  says,  "And  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink; 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  IO7 

tor  they  drank  of  that  Spiritual  Rock  that  followed 
them ;  and  that  Rock  was  Christ."  Christ  was  with 
them,  and  they  knew  him,  and  had  intimate  commu- 
nion with  him,  expressed  by  "  drinking  of  that  Spirit- 
ual Rock."  In  verse  9,  continuing  the  same  subject, 
he  says,  "  neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them 
also  tempted."  They  "  tempted  Christ,"  as  we  do 
now  when  we  murmur  and  disobey. 

Heb.  xi.  26.  It  is  said  of  Moses,  "  Esteeming  the 
reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  treasures  in 
Egypt."  Moses,  who  was  in  that  "  Church  "  as  a  dis- 
tinguished "servant,"  knew  "Christ,"  and  his  "re- 
proach," and  chose  him  in  preference  to  "  the  treasures 
in  Egypt."  The  same  fact  presents  itself  in  all  subse- 
quent ages  of  "  the  Church."  Christ  was  with  it,  and 
known  to  the  members  of  it.  Thus,  St.  Peter  (ist 
Peter  i.  10,  11),  "  Of  which  salvation  the  prophets 
have  inquired  and  searched  diligently,  who  prophesied 
of  the  grace  that  should  come  unto  you  ;  searching 
what,  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
which  was  in  them  did  signiiy,  when  it  testified  before- 
hand the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should 
follow." 

Again,  Acts  x.  43.  "  To  him  [Jesus  Christ]  give  all 
the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins." 
Not  only  was  he  with  "  the  Church,"   and  known  to 


Io8  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  members  thereof,  but  "remission  of  sins"  was 
declared,  by  every  inspired  teacher  whom  God  raised 
up,  to  be  through  "  failh  in  his  name."  How  htde 
truth,  therefore,  is  there  in  Mr.  Campbell's  assertion, 
that  in  that  Church  "  neither  faith  nor  piety  was  con- 
templated !" 

Here  we  have  established  the  fact  that  there  was  a 
"  Church,"  and  have  seen  that  Christ,  as  the  head, 
was  with  that  Church  and  known  to  the  members 
thereof.     But  one  item  remains — namely  : 

3.  The  Gospel  was  preached  in  that  Church.  To 
the  proof  of  this  we  at  once  proceed:  Heb.  iii.  16- 
19,  and  iv.  1,2:  "  For  some,  when  they  had  heard, 
did  provoke ;  howbeit,  not  all  that  came  out  of  Egypt 
by  Moses.  But  with  whom  was  he  grieved  forty 
years  ?  Was  it  not  with  them  that  had  sinned,  whose 
carcasses  fell  in  the  wilderness  ?  And  to  whom  sware 
he  that  they  should  not  enter  into  his  rest,  but  to  them 
that  believed  not?  So  we  see  they  could  not  enter 
in  because  of  unbelief.  Let  us  therefore  fear,  lest  a 
promise  being  left  us  of  entering  into  his  rest,  any  of 
you  should  seem  to  come  short  of  it.  For  unto  us 
was  the  Gospel  preached,  as  well  as  unto  them ;  but 
the  word  preached  did  not  profit  them,  not  being 
mixed  with  faith  in  them  that  heard  it." 

Here  it  is  declared  that  "  the  Gospel  was  preached  ' 
to  those  who  were  in  this  "  Church  in  the  wilderness,' 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


:o9 


and  that  some  then,  as  ever  since,  failed  of  its  ben- 
efits through  "  unbelief;"  "  howbeit  not  all  that  came 
out  of  Egypt  by  Moses."  Many  heard,  believed,  were 
saved  by  it,  just  as  men  here  believe,  and  are  saved 
by  it  now.  The  same  Apostle  declares  that  the  Gos- 
pel was  preached  "  to  Abraham,"  Gal.  iii.  8,  which 
the  Gefieva  version  of  1557  thus  renders:  "For  the 
Scripture  sawe  afore  hande,  that  God  wolde  justifie 
the  Gentiles  through  faith,  and  therefore  preached 
beforehand  the  Gospel  unto  Abraham,"  &c. 

Let  us  now  sum  up  these  facts.  We  have  seen  (j) 
That  there  was  a  Church  fifteen  centuries  before  the 
time  at  which  our  opponents  say  it  was  "set  up."  (2) 
That  Christ,  "  the  head "  and  ruler,  was  with  that 
Church,  known  to  its  members,  who  had  communion 
with  him,  and  dispensing  "  remission  of  sins  through 
faith  in  his  name."  Acts  x.  43.  (3)  That  the  Gospel 
was  preached  in  that  Church,  was  rejected  by  some 
"  who  heard  it,"  and  believed  by  others  who  were 
saved  through  it.  Now,  let  me  ask,  what  more  have 
we  to- day  making  up  the  Church  of  Christ?  The 
Church  as  "the  body,"  Christ  as  "the  head,"  and 
the  Gospel  as  the  rule  ol  faith  and  practice,  each  in 
their  divinely  appointed  relation,  the  one  to  the  other, 
is  all  that  our  opponents  themselves  claim  as  necessa- 
ry to  constitute  "  the  Church  of  Christ."  This  we 
had  in  "  the  wilderness,"  fifteen  hundred  years  before 


no  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

he  nativity,  built  upon  the  covenant  with  Abraham 
as  its  Constitution,  and  infants  received  into  it  at  the 
tenderest  age,  and  the  initiatory  rite  thereof  given  to 
them  !  Our  opponents  claim  that  this  Church,  which 
they  are  pleased  to  call  "  a  fleshly  institution,"  was 
abolished,  and  "  the  Church  of  Christ "  set  up  after 
the  crucifixion.  But  if  the  Scriptures  which  we  adduce 
depose  correctly,  why  abolish  "  the  Church  of  Christ" 
to  set  up  "  the  Church  of  Christ  ?"  Could  anything 
more  be  done  toward  making  it  "  the  Church  of 
Christ,"  when  Christ  was  already  with  it  as  its  head — 
known,  loved  and  adored  by  its  members,  and  his 
Gospel  preached  in  it  ?  Nothing  could  be  more  ab- 
surd than  the  position  of  our  opponents  here. 

We  close  this  number  with  a  brief  glance  at  the 
points  of  unity  which  have  always  existed,  and  must 
continue  to  exist,  in  the  Church  of  God. 

(i)  "One  body."  ist  Cor.  xii.  12,  13,  -'For  as 
the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the 
members  of  that  one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body ; 
so  also  is  Christ.  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles." 
"The  body,"  which  is  the  Church  (Col.  i.  17,  18),  "is 
one  "  through  all  time  and  all  economies,  and  the 
pious  Hebrews,  or  "Jews,"  were  in  this  "one  body." 

(2)  One  system  of  doctrine.  We  have  only  space 
to  name  these.     We  shall  notice  them  more  at  length 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  Ill 

hereafter.  In  the  time  of  which  Stephen  speaks,  Acts 
vii.  and  Paul,  Heb.  iii.  and  iv.,  "  the  Church  "  had  the 
same  doctrines  it  now  has,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
such  as  "Atonement,"  "  Repentance,"  "  Faith,"  "  Par- 
don," "  Resurrection,"  "  Judgment,"  "  Heaven," 
"  Hell,"  &c.,  &c.  In  the  very  first  sermon  that  Christ 
preached  after  his  resurrection  it  is  said,  "And  begin- 
ning at  Moses,  and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded 
unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning 
himself."     Luke  xxiv.  27. 

Into  this  Church,  we  re-affirm,  which  had  all  the 
facts  and  essentials  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  in- 
fants were  brought  by  the  Constitution  thereof.  Let 
our  opponents  show  when  they  were  legislated  out. 


112  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


ARTICLE     VIII. 

UNITY     OF    THE    CHURCH,    AND     OF    INFANT     MEMBER- 
SHIP   IN    IT    (continued). 

It  has  been  seen  that  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  on 
afterward,  there  was  a  Churchy  possessing  all  the  facts 
and  elements  which  make  up  "  the  Church  of  God  " 
to-day.  Christ  was  with  it.  Its  members  knew  him 
and  had  communion  with  him.  Remission  of  sins  was 
then,  as  now,  through  faith  in  his  name.  The  Gospel 
was  preached  in  it.  And  all  the  doctrines  which  the 
Church  has  now,  it  had  then.  That  many  of  its  mem- 
bers did,  from  time  to  time,  become  degenerate  in 
life  and  doctrine  is  a  sad  fact ;  but  it  is  a  fact  which 
also  characterized  the  Church  in  the  Apostolic  age, 
and  has  been  a  blot  upon  her  escutcheon  in  every  age 
since.  But  who  ever  dreamed  of  arguing  that  God 
had  no  Church  in  the  Apostolic  age  because  profliga- 
cy of  life  and  heresy  in  doctrine  characterized  the 
Church  at  Corinth,  and  at  Laodicea,  and  in  Galatia, 
and,  in  fact,  almost  everywhere  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent?  When  a  portion  of  the  Church  becomes 
faithless,  apostatizes,  it  will  not  do  to  assume  that  all 
are  like  them.     This  would  disprove  the  existence  of 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  II3 

the  Church  to-day  as  well  as  a  thousand  years  before 
the  nativity.  In  fact,  inspiration  attempts  to  save  us 
from  such  delusive  assumptions.  St.  Paul  takes  up 
one  of  the  most  degenerate  periods  in  the  history  of 
the  Church  before  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  shows  that 
even  then  there  were  those  who  remained  faithful  and 
pure  amid  an  almost  overwhelming  apostasy  :  "  Wot 
ye  not  what  the  Scripture  saith  of  Elias  ?  How  he 
maketh  mtercession  to  God  against  Israel,  saying, 
Lord,  they  have  killed  thy  prophets,  and  digged  down 
thine  altars;  and  I  am  left  alone,  and  they  seek  my 
life.  But  what  saith  the  answer  of  God  unto  him  ? 
I  have  reserved  to  myself  seven  thousand  men,  who 
have  not  bowed  the  knee  to  the  image  of  Baal. 
Even  so  then  at  this  present  time  also  there  is  a  rem- 
nant according  to  the  election  of  grace."  (Rom.  xi. 
2-5.)  Here  was  one  of  the  darkest  periods  in  the 
history  of  the  Church.  God's  altars  were  "  digged 
down,"  his  prophets  were  "  killed,"  the  dismal  rites  of 
Baal  were  observed  on  every  mountain  and  in  every 
vale ;  even  Elias  supposed  the  apostasy  was  universal 
and  complete.  But  even  then  "  seven  thousand  men  " 
(by  which  expression  an  indefinite  but  large  number 
is  intended),  remained  faithful  and  true.  Paul  surveys 
a  similar  scene  in  his  own  day.  He  saw  defection 
and  apostasy  everywhere,  yet  did  not  conclude  that, 
therefore,  God's  Church  had  fallen  and  the  covenant 
8 


114  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

failed;  but,  on  the  contrary,  shows  that  then,  as  in 
the  days  of  EHas,  there  was  "  a  remnant "  who  re- 
mained true.  There  could,  therefore,  be  no  more  fal- 
lacious process  of  argumentation  than  that  of  our  op- 
ponents who  assume  that  because  the  "  rulers  of  the 
people "  and  multitudes  of  their  creatures  rejected 
Christ  when  he  came,  or  were  heretical  and  impure 
centuries  before  he  came,  therefore  God  had  no 
Church  then.  "  The  rulers "  and  their  minions  did 
the  same  in  the  days  of  Elias,  and  still  God  had  a  true 
people  left.  Now,  one  of  the  great  benefits  of  Mes- 
siah's coming  was  to  be  the  cleansing  and  purifying  of 
his  Church  from  these  evils.  Thus  saith  the  prophet : 
"And  the  Lord  whom  ye  seek  shall  suddenly  come  to 
his  temple,  even  the  messenger  of  the  covenant,  whom 
ye  dehght  in ;  behold,  he  shall  come,  saith  the  Lord 
of  hosts.  But  who  may  abide  the  day  of  his  coming  ? 
and  who  shall  stand  when  he  appeareth  ?  for  he  is 
like  a  refiner's  fire,  and  like  fuller's  soap.  And  he 
shall  sit  as  a  refiner  and  purifier  of  silver ;  and  he  shall 
purify  the  sons  of  Levi,  and  purge  them  as  gold  and 
silver,  that  they  may  offer  unto  the  Lord  an  offering  in 
righteousness.  Then  shall  the  offering  of  Judah  and 
Jerusalem  be  pleasant  unto  the  Lord,  as  in  the  days  of 
old,  and  as  in  former  times."  (Malachi  iii.  1-4.) 
This  prophet,  standing  upon  the  utmost  verge  of  the 
old  prophetic  period,  and  looking  across  a  chasm  of 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  II5 

four  hundred  years,  during  which  time  no  prophet 
should  arise,  sees  the  Messiah  at  the  great  work  of 
purifying  his  Church  from  heresy  and  degeneracy, 
thus  anticipating  the  glorious  work  which  John  the 
Baptist  saw  inaugurated  when  he  said :  "  His  fan  is 
in  his  hand,  and  he  will  thoroughly  purge  his  floor, 
and  gather  his  wheat  into  the  garner;  but  he  will 
burn  up  the  chaff  with  unquenchable  fire."  (Matt.  iii. 
12.)  The  Church,  therefore,  was  not  to  be  disman- 
tled and  a  new  experiment  entered  upon.  But  it  was 
to  be  absterged  and  purified  from  erroneous  doctrines 
and  degenerate  members.  We  ask  the  reader  to  turn 
to  Matthew  xxi.  33-46,  and  read  it  carefully  in  this 
connection.  Under  the  parable  of  "  the  Vineyard  " 
Christ  fully  sets  forth  the  fact  that  his  Church,  which 
was  often  likened  to  a  vineyard  (see  Isa.  v.)  was 
not  to  be  torn  down  and  a  new  institution  erected  be- 
cause of  the  apostasy  of  so  many  of  its  members,  but 
it  was  "  to  be  taken  from  "  those  who  had  proved  un- 
true to  it — the  apostate  portion  of  Israel — and  "  given 
to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof"  (V.  43.) 
The  apostates  who  heard  him  did  not  misunderstand 
him  on  this  point,  for  "  when  the  Chief  Priests  and 
Pharisees  had  heard  his  parables,  they  perceived  that 
he  spake  of  them  "  (V.  45);  "and  when  they  heard 
it,  they  said,  God  forbid."     (Luke  xx.  16.) 

St.  Paul  argues  the  same  thing  under  a  different 


Il6  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

figure.  In  Roman  xi.  he  likens  the  Church  to  "a 
good  oHve  tree,"  firom  which  some  of  the  "  branches  " 
or  members  were  broken  off  through  "  unbehef,"  and 
the  Gentiles  were  "  grafted  in."  "  And  if  some  of  the 
branches  be  broken  oft",  and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive 
tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,  and  with  them  par- 
takest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  ohve  tree ;  boast 
not  against  the  branches.  But  if  thou  boast,  thou 
bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee."  It  is  mani- 
fest that  by  this  "  good  olive  tree  "  he  means  the 
Church.  This  will  be  made  plain.  Bloomfield,  on 
verse  17,  says  :  "  Of  the  olive  tree,  /,  <*.,  of  the  prom- 
ises to  Abraham,  and  the  privileges  of  God's  Church." 
Moses  Stuart,  on  verse  17,  says:  "  The  image  which 
he  here  employs  is  a  very  vivid  one.  The  Gentiles 
had  been  grafted  in  upon  the  Jewish  Church,  and  had 
caused  this  decayed  tree  to  revive  and  flourish.'' 
Tholuck,  on  the  same  verse,  says :  "  By  Christianity, 
he  says,  Judaism  is  not  properly  done  away ;  that 
was  rather  the  veil  by  which  Christianity  was  once 
concealed.  So  little,  then,  ought  the  Gentile  to  look 
down  upon  the  Jew,  as  the  follower  of  a  false  religion, 
that  he  must  rather  regard  him  as  one  belonging  to 
the  true  rehgion,  but  who  does  not  appreciate  that  as 
he  ought,  and  so  is  in  error  regarding  his  own  faith. 
On  the  contrary,  the  Gentile,  instructed  in  Christiani- 
ty, becomes  thereby  a  true  Jew."     It  is  needless  to 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  II7 

multiply  citations  of  this  kind.  The  voice  of  learned 
criticism  has  not  one  discordant  note  at  this  point. 
All  acknowledge  that  by  "  the  good  olive  tree  "  the 
Church  of  God,  as  it  existed  among  the  Hebrews,  is 
meant.  This  being  established,  observe  the  following 
points  made  by  the  Apostle : 

(i)  The  unbelieving  Jews,  as  fruitless  branches,  are 
"broken  off"  (V.  17);  "some  of  the  branches  be 
broken  off"  (V.  20);  "  because  of  unbelief  they  were 
broken  off;"  for  rejecting  the  Messiah  and  corrupting 
the  faith.  But  this  did  not  destroy  "  the  good  olive 
tree."  Its  "  root  and  fatness "  remained,  and  the 
Gentiles  were  grafted  in  among  the  branches  which 
remained. 

(2)  That  the  Gentiles,  when  converted  to  Christi- 
anity, were  "  graffed  into  this  good  olive  tree  " — the 
Church — not  formed  into  a  new  organization.  Ad- 
dressing these  Gentile  converts,  St.  Paul  says  :  "  If 
some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou,  being  a 
wild  olive  tree,  wert  graffed  in  among  them,  and  with 
them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive 
tree;  boast  not  against  the  branches."  (V.  17.)  This 
can  not  be  misunderstood.  The  Church  of  God  bad 
remained,  based  upon  the  "  everlasting  covenant " 
made  with  Abraham ;  many  Jews  had  been  thrust  out 
because  of  "unbelief"  and  unholiness  of  life;  and 
those  who  were  converted  to  Christ  from  among  the 
Gentiles  were  brought  into  this  Church. 


Il8  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

(3)  That  when  the  Jews,  now  in  unbeHef,  are  re- 
claimed and  brought  to  recognize  the  Messiah  in  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  they  will  be  restored  to  their  original 
Church  and  covenant  relation — not  introduced  into  a 
new  institution.  So  saith  the  Apostle,  verse  23,  "And 
they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be 
grafted  in  ;  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again,"  V. 
24 ;  "  how  much  more  shall  these,  which  be  the  natu- 
ral branches,  be  graffed  into  their  own  olive  tree  ?" 
But  let  us  suppose  that  the  position  of  our  opponents, 
with  reference  to  the  Church,  be  correct.  Then,  when 
che  Jews  are  converted  (as  the  Scriptures  assuredly 
indicate  they  will  be),  and  brought  into  the  Church  of 
God,  instead  of  bemg  returned  to  "  their  own  olive 
tree,"  or  Church,  they  will  find  themselves  in  an  or- 
ganization utterly  at  variance  with  the  Church  from 
which  they  had  been  cut  off.  Our  opponents  say  that 
the  Church  set  up  on  Pentecost  had  "new  principles;" 
that  it  rests  upon  a  "  new  covenant  " — a  different  Con- 
stitution— that  it  is  radically  difterent  in  its  "  terms  of 
membership,"  its  "  doctrines,"  and  its  "  members." 
How  would  this  be  a  restoration  of  the  converted 
Israelite  to  his  own  olive  tree.  The  absurdity  of  the 
position  is  most  manifest.  Here,  then,  as  in  many 
other  places,  the  Apostle,  in  harmony  w^ith  the  Saviour's 
teachings  on  the  subject,  declares  the  unity  and  con- 
tinuance of  the  Church  through  all  dispensations. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  II9 

These  facts  being  established,  let  us  now  return  to 
the  point  from  which  we  digressed.  One  of  the  great 
benefits  of  Messiah's  coming,  we  have  said,  was 
to  be  the  cleansing  and  purifying  of  this  Church. 
Accordingly,  before  that  ever  memorable  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, the  Church,  purged  from  the  accumulated 
abuses  of  ages,  and  separated  from  the  faithless  multi- 
tude who  had  crowded  her  courts,  appears  all  glori- 
ous. Acts  i.  15,  16.  "And  in  those  days  Peter 
stood  up  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples,  and  said  (the 
number  of  the  names  together  were  about  an  hundred 
and  twenty),  men  and  brethren,  this  Scripture  must 
needs  have  been  fulfilled,"  &c. 

Here  was  the  Church  of  God,  called  by  one  of  its 
most  common  appellations — "  disciples."  Now,  with 
reference  to  this  Church,  we  observe  the  following 
facts  : 

(i)  It  performed,  at  this  point  in  its  history,  one  of 
the  most  solemn  duties  the  Church  was  ever  called 
upon  to  discharge — namely,  to  elect  an  Apostle. 
(Verses  i6  and  26.)  Surely  if  it  had  not  been  the 
Church  of  God  it  would  not  have  presumed  to  do 
such  a  thing. 

(2)  To  this  Church  the  "three  thousand"  were 
"  added  "  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  millions 
who  were  afterward  converted  to  Christ.  So  we  read, 
Acts  ii.  41,  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word 


I20  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

were  baptized ;  and  the  same  day  there  were  added 
unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls."  To  whom, 
or  to  what,  were  these  three  thousand  added  ?  Most 
manifestly  to  that  Church,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
few  days  before,  had  elected  an  Apostle,  whose  num- 
ber is  stated  to  have  been  "  an  hundred  and  twenty," 
and  which  bore  the  common  name  of  the  Church — 
disciples.  In  the  47th  verse  these  are  called  the  Church 
— "And  the  Lord  added  to  the  Church  daily  such  as 
should  be  saved."  Instead,  therefore,  of  finding  a 
new  organization  set  up  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  we 
find  the  converts  made  on  that  day  "  added  "  to  a 
previously  existing  and  regularly  constituted  "Church." 

(3)  The  "  one  hundred  and  twenty  "  who  composed 
this  Church  never  received  Christian  baptism  on  or 
after  the  day  of  Pentecost.  They  had  been  brought 
into  the  Church  by  circumcision  in  infancy,  and  had 
not  gone  off  in  the  apostasy.  They  were,  in  part  at 
least,  "  the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of 
grace,"  to  which  St.  Paul  refers  in  Romans  xi.  5. 
This  was  the  "  good  olive  tree  "  from  which  the  fruit- 
less branches  had  been  broken  off,  and  into  which  the 
vast  multitudes  converted  from  among  the  Gentiles 
"  were  grafifed." 

Let  not  our  opponents  cavil  at  the  smallness  of  the 
number  of  this  Church  as  it  appears  in  Acts  i.  15-16. 
The  eye  of  prophecy  had  looked  down  through  many 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  121 

centuries  upon  this  little  company,  and  the  tongue  of 
prophets  had  been  divinely  moved  to  utter  "  exceed- 
ing great  and  precious  promises  "  to  them.  We  will 
read  some  of  those  promises,  and  thereby  still  further 
see  that  it  never  was  the  intention  of  Jehovah  to  de- 
stroy the  Church  founded  upon  his  covenant  with 
Abraham,  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  bring  the  Gentiles 
to  it.  "  But  Zion  said,  The  Lord  hath  forsaken  me, 
and  my  Lord  hath  forgotten  me.  Can  a  woman  for- 
get her  sucking  child,  that  she  should  not  have  com- 
passion on  the  son  of  her  womb  ?  Yea,  they  may 
forget,  yet  will  I  not  forget  thee.  Behold,  I  have 
graven  thee  upon  the  palms  of  my  hands;  thy  walls 
are  continually  before  me.  Thy  children  shall  make 
haste ;  thy  destroyers  and  they  that  make  thee  waste 
shall  go  forth  of  thee."  When  the  Church  was  so 
fearfully  diminished  by  the  apostasy,  she  is  represented 
as  exclaiming,  "  The  Lord  hath  forsaken  me,  and  my 
Lord  hath  forgotten  me  " — the  very  thing  which  our 
opponents  say  was  done.  But  God  says  to  his  weep- 
ing Church,  '-  Behold,  I  have  graven  thee  upon  the 
palms  of  my  hands,"  and  assures  her  that  even  though 
a  mother  should  forget  her  child,  "  yet  I  will  not  for- 
get thee."  But  how  could  he  promise  this  if  he  inten- 
ded to  lay  her  utterly  waste,  and  throw  her  aside  as  a 
"  fleshly  "  thing  which  "  contemplated  neither  faith 
nor  piety !  "     But  he  proceeds  to  show   her  the  en- 


122  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

largement  and  glory  which  he  would  bring  to  her  in 
the  days  of  her  desolation.  "  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round 
about,  and  behold;  all  these  gather  themselves 
together,  and  come  to  thee.  As  I  live,  saith  the 
Lord,  thou  shalt  surely  clothe  thee  with  them  all,  as 
with  an  ornament,  and  bind  them  on  thee  as  a  bride 
doeth."  Here  the  promise  is  that  the  Gentiles  shall 
come  to  Zion — the  Church — and  the  desolation  made 
by  the  apostasy  of  so  many  Jews  shall  be  repaired  by 
the  ingathering  of  the  nations.  But  the  promise  pro- 
ceeds :  "  The  children  which  thou  shalt  have,  after 
thou  hast  lost  the  other  [  after  the  apostasy  J,  shall  say 
again  in  thine  ears.  The  place  is  too  strait  for  me ;  give 
place  to  me  that  I  may  dwell.  Then  shalt  thou  say 
in  thine  heart.  Who  hath  begotten  me  these,  seeing  I 
have  lost  my  children,  and  am  desolate,  a  captive,  and 
removing  to  and  fro  ?  and  who  hath  brought  up  these  ? 
Behold  I  was  left  alone ;  these,  where  had  they  been  ? 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  Behold,  I  will  lift  up  mine 
hand  to  the  Gentiles,  and  set  up  my  standard  to  the 
people ;  and  they  shall  bring  thy  sons  in  their  arms, 
and  thy  daughters  shall  be  carried  upon  their  should- 
ers. And  kings  shall  be  thy  nursing  fathers,  and  their 
queens  thy  nursing  mothers ;  they  shall  bow  down  to 
thee  with  their  faces  toward  the  earth,  and  lick  up  the 
dust  of  thy  feet ;  and  thou  shalt  know  that  I  am  the 
Lord  ;  for  thev  shall  not  be  ashamed  that  wait  for  me." 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  1 23 

(Isa.  xlix.)  Here  was  the  assurance — not  that  the 
Church  should  be  dismantled  and  obliterated  because 
"  the  Chief  Priests,  and  Scribes,  and  rulers  of  the 
people"  rejected  the  Messiah  and  apostatized  from 
the  faith,  but  that  the  Church  should  arise  from  the 
pressure  of  these  calamities  and  the  woe  of  these  deso- 
lations, and  "  clothe  "  herself  with  the  nations  of  the 
earth.  The  history  of  the  past  eighteen  hundred 
years  has  verified  these  promises.  But  the  promise 
continues  :  "  Sing,  O  barren,  thou  that  didst  not  bear; 
break  forth  into  singing,  and  cry  aloud,  thou  that 
didst  not  travail  with  child ;  for  more  are  the  children 
of  the  desolate  than  the  children  of  the  married  wife, 
saith  the  Lord.  Enlarge  the  place  ot  thy  tent,  and 
let  them  stretch  forth  the  curtains  of  thine  habitations; 
spare  not,  lengthen  thy  cords,  and  strengthen  thy 
stakes ;  for  thou  shalt  break  forth  on  the  right  hand 
and  on  the  left;  and  thy  seed  shall  inherit  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  make  the  desolate  cities  to  be  inhabited. 
In  a  little  wrath  I  hid  my  face  from  thee 
for  a  moment;  but  with  everlasting  kindness  will  I 
have  mercy  on  thee,  saith  the  Lord  thy  Redeemer." 
(Isa.  liv.  I,  3,  8.) 

It  is  needless  to  copy  more  of  these  assurances  of 
continuance  and  increase  of  the  Church.  They  glitter 
like  the  stars  of  morning  upon  almost  every  page  of 
prophecy.       Instead,     therefore,    of    abolishing    his 


124  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Church,  and  setting  up  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  "  a 
new  institution,"  with  "  new  principles  and  new  terms 
of  membership,"  every  promise  that  God  had  given 
the  Church  was  to  the  effect  that  she  should  survive 
the  apostasy,  and  pass  on  to  "  inherit  the  Gentiles," 
with  her  Constitution  unchanged  and  her  organization 
unbroken.  Accordingly,  we  see  the  Church  before 
the  day  of  Pentecost  (Acts  i.  15-16)  in  the  discharge 
of  her  high  functions,  and  on  that  memorable  day 
3,000  were  "  added  "  to  it,  and  5,000  a  few  days  after, 
and  then  she  sweeps  out  over  all  tribal  metes  and 
bounds  and  gathers  into  her  embrace  the  millions  that 
are  "  beyond."  Triumphing  over  the  desolations  of 
all  ages,  and  passing  unbroken  over  prostrate  empires 
and  crumbled  thrones,  she  has  come  grandly  down  from 
the  remotest  antiquity.  She  was  venerable  with  years 
when  the  pyramids  of  Egypt  were  begun;  she  was  all 
glorious  as  the  City  of  God  when  the  foundations  of 
Babylon  were  laid ;  the  martial  tread  of  her  hosts  was 
felt  upon  this  earth  before  Sesostris  shook  the  plains  of 
Asia,  or  Xerxes  stormed  the  defenses  of  Greece.  As 
we  stand  in  her  venerable  presence  to-day,  we  may 
properly  address  to  her  the  splendid  lines  of  the  poet : 

"  But  thou  of  temples  old,  or  altars  new, 

Standest  alone — with  nothing  like  to  thee — 
Worthiest  of  God,  the  holy  and  the  true  ! 
Since  Zion's  desolation,  when  that  He 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  I  25 

Forsook  his  former  City,  what  could  be 
Of  earthly  structures  in  his  honor  pil'd 

Of  a  sublimer  aspect  ?     Majesty, 

Power,  glory,  strength,  and  beauty,  all  are  aisl'd 
In  this  eternal  ark  of  worship  undefil'd. " 

If  we  look  back  now  along  the  line  of  development 
we  have  pursued  we  shall  see  that  the  following  facts 
have  been  estabhshed  : 

(i)  The  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  which  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  is  unalterable,  and  which 
"  was  confirmed  in  Christ,"  does,  as  the  eternal  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  provide  that  infants  shall  be 
received  into  membership  by  the  Church  and  the  ini- 
tiatory rite  thereof  given  them.  This  is  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  Church  to-day. 

(2)  That  the  initiatory  rite,  which  under  a  former 
economy  was  circumcision,  and  was  given  to  infants, 
has,  under  the  present  economy,  been  changed  to  bap- 
tism, with  no  change  specified  as  to  the  subjects  there- 
of Hence  the  constitutional  provisions  with  reference 
to  children  not  being  changed,  their  rights  remain  the 
same. 

And  (3)  that  the  Church,  founded  upon  this  Con- 
stitution, and  illustrating  its  meaning  by  her  adminis- 
tration in  receiving  infants  to  membership  for  nearly 
two  thousand  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  con- 
tinues to  this  dav  the  same  Church — the  same  in  her 


126  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

"  Head,  which  is  Christ,"  the  same  in  her  Constitution, 
in  her  doctrines,  terms  of  membership,  &c.  From 
these  facts,  sustained  at  every  point  by  the  exphcit 
declarations  of  God's  word,  the  conclusion  comes  as 
inevitably  as  the  effect  flows  from  its  cause — infant 
baptism  is  authorized  by  the  word  of  God. 

The  Scriptures  by  which  our  opponents  attempt  to 
disprove  the  unity  of  the  Church  in  all  ages,  will  be 
next  considered. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  127 


ARTICLE     IX. 

THE  TEXTS  SUPPOSED  TO  MILITATE  AGAINST  THE 
UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH,  CONSIDERED  (jER.  XXXI. 
31-34;  HEB.  VIII.  8-12  j  AMOS  IX.  II  ;  ACTS  XV. 
14,  ETC.) 

It  has  been  supposed  by  our  opponents  that  the 
above  texts  disprove  the  position  that  the  Church  and 
its  Constitution  have  remained  one  and  the  same 
through  all  dispensations.  Now,  if  there  were  a  con- 
flict between  the  above  texts,  on  this  question,  and 
the  numerous  plain  and  unequivocal  declarations  of 
Scripture  which  we  have  produced  to  establish  the 
unity  of  the  Church,  all  the  rules  of  Biblical  interpre- 
tation would  demand  that  these  texts  relied  on  by  our 
opponents  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with  those  we 
have  adduced.  Our  position  is  sustained  by  plain 
declarations  which  appear  all  through  the  Bible;  by 
processes  of  reasoning  by  inspired  prophets  and  Apos- 
tles; by  parables  and  illustrations  by  the  Savior,  until 
a  demonstration  is  made  which  no  separate  and  iso- 
lated text  can  displace  without  establishing  a  prece- 
dent which  would  lay  the  very  heart  of  Christianity 
bare  to  the  thrusts  of  infidelity. 


128  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

But  no  such  conflict  exists  here.  These  passages, 
rehed  on  by  our  opponents,  when  calmly  considered, 
fall  into  line  and  support  our  claim.  Let  us,  there- 
fore, take  them  up,  one  by  one,  and  examine  them. 

Jer.  xxxi.  31-34.  This  is  quoted  by  St.  Paul,  Heb. 
viii.  8-12.  Let  the  reader  turn  to  them  and  read 
them  carefully.  In  both  these  places  the  promise  of 
"  a  new  covenant "  is  given,  and  that  the  law  of  God 
should  be  "  put  in  their  inward  parts,  and  written  in 
their  hearts." 

From  this  our  opponents  attempt  to  show,  that  by 
"  a  new  covenant  "  is  meant  one  different  from  that 
made  with  Abraham — a  new  Constitution  for  a  new 
Church.  "  He  tells  us  not  only  that  it  will  be  a  new 
covenant,  but  that  it  will  be  unlike  the  old  covenant  " 
(Wilkes  in  the  W.  D.  Debate,  p.  49) ;  that  the  terms 
of  membership  under  this  new  covenant  are  radically 
different  from  those  of  the  old.  Under  the  new,  God's 
law  is  to  be  put  in  the  inward  part,  and  his  law  written 
in  the  heart.  This,  say  our  opponents,  can  not  be 
done  to  infants,  and  that,  consequently,  they  are  no 
longer  eligible  to  covenant  relation.  It  ought  to  be  a 
sufficient  answer  to  all  this  to  say  that  it  contradicts  all 
St.  Paul  says  concerning  the  covenant  with  Abraham. 
Gal.  iii.  15.  It  is  there  shown,  as  also  in  other  places, 
that  the  covenant  with  Abraham  could  not  be  dis- 
placed by  any  subsequent  arrangement,  and  that  no 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  1 29 

item  of  any  new  covenant  could  clash  with  the  items 
of  that  without  a  palpable  violation  of  all  covenant 
rights.  Once  a  covenant  is  ratified  by  the  parties,  it 
becomes  unalterable  in  all  subsequent  time,  except  by 
the  parties  to  it.  God  might  make  a  covenant  with 
any  of  the  people  of  Israel  at  any  time,  and  he  might 
multiply  these  "  new  covenants  "  a  thousandfold,  but 
no  one  of  them  could  contravene  that  made  with 
Abraham  and  "confirmed  in  Christ." 

Again :  It  is  plain  from  the  quotation  above  from 
Mr.  Wilkes,  and  also  from  the  statements  of  others  in 
sympathy  with  him,  that  there  is  a  continual  con- 
founding of  the  terms  old  and  new  with  reference  to 
these  covenants.  We  have  already  shown,  what  is 
admitted  by  Mr.  Campbell  and  President  Milligan, 
that  in  these  places  the  "  old  covenant "  is  that  made 
with  Moses  at  Sinai,  and  that  the  "  new  covenant  "  is 
the  Abrahamic.  But  Mr.  Wilkes  and  others  make 
the  "old"  mean  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  the 
"  new  "  something  which  they  imagine  was  inaugu- 
rated after  the  crucifixion.  This  is  a  miserable  per- 
version, and  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  their  fallacies 
on  this  point.  Neither  Jeremiah  nor  Paul  contem- 
plated such  a  thing  in  making  "  a  new  covenant "  as 
that  which  our  opponents  assume.  They  assume  that 
those  inspired  men  meant  to  originate  a  covenant,  to 
create  that  which  had  no  previous  existence.  But  a 
9 


130  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

moment's  examination  must  convince  the  unprejudiced 
that  they  contemplated  no  such  thing. 

The  Hebrew  word  used  by  Jeremiah,  and  translated 
"new"  in  our  version,  is  hhdash,  which  Furst  defines 
"  to  renew,  to  set  up  anew,"  and  he  refers,  as  exam- 
ples of  its  use  in  this  sense,  to  ist  Sam.  xi.  14,  "Then 
said  Samuel  to  his  people,  Come,  and  let  us  go  to 
Gilgal,  and  7'enew  the  kingdom  there ;"  and  2d  Chron. 
XV.  8,  "And  Asa  .  .  .  re7iewed  the  altar  of  the 
Lord  that  was  before  the  porch  of  the  Lord ;"  xxiv.  4, 
"And  it  came  to  pass  after  this,  that  Joash  was  mind- 
ed to  repair  the  house  of  the  Lord;"  Isa.  Ixi.  4,  "And 
they  shall  repair  the  waste  cities,  the  desolations  of 
many  generations." 

Julius  Bates  (Critica  Hebraea,  of  1767,)  also  defines 
it  "  to  renew,"  and  cites  the  examples  above  given, 
with  the  addition  of  Ps.  ciii.  5,  "  Thy  youth  is  refiew- 
ed"  The  word  which  Jeremiah  employs  does  not, 
therefore,  mean  to  originate  in  this  passage.  When 
the  seventy  rendered  this  word  in  Greek,  they  trans- 
lated it  by  diadrjooiiat  [diathesomai)^  which  is  never 
defined  by  the  lexicons  in  the  sense  of  to  originate, 
but  "to  dispose,  arrange,  settle  mutually."  (Liddell 
and  Scott.)  Or,  as  Robinson  defines,  "to  appoint,  to 
assign,  to  covenant  "  When  St.  Paul  quotes  this  pas- 
sage from  Jeremiah  (Heb.  viii.  8),  he  uses,  not  the 
word  which  the  Seventy  used,  but   avvrtXtoiy)  {simte- 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


131 


leso),  which  Robinson  defines  thus,  "  to  finish  wholly, 
to  complete,  to  fulfill,"  and  refers  to  many  examples 
of  its  use  in  the  Scriptures  in  this  sense.  Now,  a  re- 
mark will  be  sufiicient  to  show  the  bearing  of  all  this. 
Under  the  accumulated  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Levitical  ritual  the  spirituality  of  religion,  and  of  the 
Church  founded  upon  the  covenant  with  Abraham, 
had  been  greatly  lost  sight  of.  God,  therefore,  points 
to  the  time,  in  this  language  of  Jeremiah,  when  these 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  that  ritual — the  Sinaitic  cove- 
nant— should  be  removed,  and  when  the  pure  spiritu- 
ality of  the  Church  and  of  religion,  as  contemplated 
in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  should  be  restored.  Hence 
it  is  called  a  renewal,  a  restoration,  a  completion,  of 
that  begun  with  Abraham.  It  is  not  a  little  remarka- 
ble that  all  our  old  English  translations  render  St. 
Paul's  language  in  Heb.  viii.  8  in  perfect  accordance 
with  this  statement.  I  will  here  give  them  in  paral- 
lel columns : 


WicUf— 1380— Heb.  viii.  8, 
**  For  he  repremynge  them  : 
Seith,  lo  daies  comer  seith  the 
lord ;  and  I  schal  make  perfect 
a  newe  testament  on  the  hous 
of  Israel  and  on  the  hous  of 
juda." 

Cranmer  1539  Heb.  viii,  8, 
*'  For  in  rebukinge  them,  he 
sayth  unto  them,  Behold  the 
days  come  (sayth  the  Lord) 
and   I  will    fynisshe  upon  the 


Tyndale — 1534 — Heb.  viii. 
8,  "  For  in  rebukynge  them  he 
sayth,  Behold  the  days  will 
come  (sayth  the  lorde)  and  I 
will  fynnyshe  [finish]  upon  the 
housse  of  Israhel  and  upon  the 
housse  of  Juda  a  newe  testa- 
ment." 

Rheims— 1582— Heb.  viii.  8, 
"For  blaming  them  he  saith: 
Behold  the  dai  ;s  shal  come, 
saith  our  Lord;   and  I  will  con- 


132 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


house  of  Israel,  and  iipon  the 
house  of  Juda,  a  new  testa- 
ment." 


summate  upon  the  house  of 
Israel,  and  upon  the  house  of 
Juda  a  new  Testament." 


These  venerable  translators,  following  the  real 
meaning  of  the  words  of  Jeremiah  and  Paul,  in  every 
instance  render  them  according  to  the  definitions  and 
use  of  them  which  we  have  shown.  In  fact,  the  idea 
of  renewal  or  restoration  pervades  the  entire  31st 
chapter  of  Jeremiah.  Thus,  verse  28th,  "And  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  like  as  I  have  watched  over  them 
[i.  e.,  the  house  of  Judah  and  of  Israel,  verse  27]  to 
pluck  up,  and  to  break  down,  and  to  throw  down, 
and  to  destroy,  and  to  afflict ;  so  will  I  watch  over  them, 
to  build,  and  to  plant,  saith  the  Lord." 

Instead,  therefore,  of  a  new  covenant  and  a  new 
Church,  in  which  conditions  of  membership  should 
exist  impossible  for  an  infant  to  comply  with,  the  lan- 
guage is  a  promise  of  a  perfect  renewal  of  that  cove- 
nant which  provides  for  infants,  and  of  that  Church 
which  had  always  received  them.  God's  law  was  in 
the  mind  and  written  in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful 
members  of  tke  Church  centuries  before  the  crucifixion, 
as  really  as  at  any  time  since.  Thus  the  pious  Psalm- 
ist exclaims,  "  Thy  word  have   I   hid  in  mine  heart, 

that  I  might  not  sin  against  thee O  how 

I  love  thy  law ;  it  is  my  meditation  all  the  day     . 
.     .     for  thy  testimonies  are  my  meditation.     .     . 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  133 

How  sweet  are  thy  words  unto  my  taste  !  yea,  sweeter 
than  h©ney  to  my  mouth Thy  testimo- 
nies have  I  taken  as  an  heritage  forever ;  for  they 
are  the  rejoicing  of  my  heart."  (Ps.  119.)  Has  any 
one,  under  the  present  economy,  a  happier  experience 
in  the  law  of  God  than  this  ?  David  did  not  regard^ 
it  impossible  for  adults  to  have  the  law  of  God  written 
in  their  hearts  in  a  Church  which  received  infants. 
Why  should  we  ?  The  reasonings  of  our  opponents 
upon  the  texts  under  consideration  is  a  tissue  of  soph- 
istry from  beginning  to  end. 

As  the  idea  ot  a  "  new  Church,"  and  a  new  order 
of  things  in  it,  is  the  point  around  which  the  oppo- 
nents of  infant  baptism  make  their  hottest  and  most 
determined  fight,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  elaborate 
a  litde  further  the  Biblical  idea  of  restoration  or  reno- 
vation with  reference  to  the  Church.  The  idea  every- 
where presented  in  the  Bible  on  this  subject  is  that 
God  would,  at  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  relieve  the 
Church  of  the  numerous  and  oppressive  rites  which 
the  Sinaitic  covenant  placed  upon  it,  and  restore  to  it 
the  simple  spiritual  worship  which  it  had  before.  We 
will  take  one  prominent  presentation  of  this  idea  as 
an  illustration  of  the  truth  of  this  position  : 

The  prophet  Amos  (ix.  11),  referring  to  that  much 
desired  period,  said :  "  In  that  day  will  I  raise  up  the 
tabernacle  of  David  that  is  fallen,  and  close  up  the 


134  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

breaches  thereof;  and  I  will  raise  up  his  ruins,  and  I 
will  build  it  as  in  the  days  of  old."  A  httle  consider- 
ation will  disclose  the  fact,  that  by  "  the  tabernacle  of 
David,"  and  the  building  of  it  "  as  in  the  days  of  old," 
is  meant  that  renovation  of  the  Church  and  restora- 
tion of  a  pure,  comparatively  non-ritual,  worship  which 
we  have  seen  foretold  by  Jeremiah.  To  this  end  let 
us  examine  the  several  particulars  of  this  prophecy  in 
their  proper  order  : 

(i)  The  word  "tabernacle"  used  by  Amos  means 
the  Church,  not  the  lineage  or  family  of  David,  as 
some  suppose.  Whitby,  perhaps,  is  more  responsible 
than  any  other  commentator  for  this  error.  As  a  dis- 
tinguished critic  (Dr.  Smith)  says:    "  Seeing  the  word 

*  tabernacle '  in  the  English  version,  he  (Whitby)  has- 
tily concluded  that  the  usual  word  for  '  tabernacle  '  in 
the  original — namely,  mishkan,  was  the  word  employ- 
ed by  Amos,  without  troubling  himself  to  examine 
the  Hebrew  text  of  the  prophet,  to  verify  his  conjec- 
ture. He  has,  consequently,  misled  his  readers." 
(Harmony,  p.  io6.)  Mr.  Wilkes,  ignorant  of  the  He- 
brew, submitted  himself  to  the  unsafe  guidance  of 
Whitby  in  this  particular,  and  fell  into  the  same  egre- 
gious error.  He  said  :  "  The  tabernacle  of  David 
means  the  family  of  David,  the  hneage  of  David." 
(W.    D.    Debate,  p.   6i.)     The  word   here   rendered 

*  *  tabernacle"  is  sukkath^  which  never  is  used  to  signify 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  135 

a  "  house"  in  the  sense  of  a  "family."  Furst  defines 
this  word,  "A  booth,  hut,  a  tent,"  &c.  Amos  passed 
by  the  word  {mishka?i)  which  ordinarily  means  "  fam- 
ily," and  took  this  word  siikkath  to  express,  first,  the 
house  which  David  built  for  the  w^orship  of  God,  and, 
secondly,  the  spiritual,  non-ritual  worship  which  was 
offered  there.  The  prophecy,  therefore,  declares  the 
restoration  of  this  Church. 

(2)  Let  us  now  examine  the  history  of  the  "  taber- 
nacle of  David."  The  facts  concerning  it  are  briefly 
as  follows  :  When  the  Hebrews  crossed  the  Jordan, 
the  tabernacle  built  in  the  wilderness  was  set  up  at 
Gilgal,  and  after  the  death  of  Joshua  it  was  removed 
to  Shiloh  in  the  tribe  of  Ephraim.  Here  the  Leviti- 
cal  ritual  was  observed  in  all  the  departments  of  wor- 
ship. In  the  days  of  Eli's  high-priesthood  the  He- 
brews took  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  from  this  taber- 
nacle and  carried  it  before  them  to  a  great  battle  with 
the  Philistines,  in  which  they  were  slaughtered  and 
the  Ark  captured.  It  remained  in  Philistia  seven 
months,  and  was  then  returned  to  the  Israelites,  but 
was  never  restored  to  the  tabernacle  at  Shiloh — the 
Mosaic  tabernacle.  On  its  return  from  Philistia  it 
was  placed  in  the  house  of  Abinadab,  whose  son  Elea- 
zar  was  "  sanctified  to  keep  the  Ark  of  the  Lord,"  and 
there  it  remained  for  eighty  years.  In  the  meantime 
the  Mosaic  tabernacle  was   removed  from  Shiloh   to 


136  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Gibeon  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  When,  therefore, 
David  came  to  the  throne,  the  Ark  was  at  the  house 
of  Abinadab  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  the  tabernacle 
of  Moses  at  Gibeon  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  When 
David  had  subdued  his  enemies  on  every  hand,  his 
pious  heart  turned  toward  the  Ark  of  the  Lord  which 
he  determined  to  remove.  He  accordingly  built  a 
new  tabernacle — sukkath — near  his  own  house  on 
Mount  Zion  for  its  reception.  When  he  attempted  to 
remove  it  thither  the  folly  of  Uzzah  provoked  the 
anger  of  God,  who  "  smote  him  for  his  error,  and  there 
he  died  by  the  Ark  of  God."  This  caused  a  delay  in 
its  removal,  and  it  was  left  in  the  house  of  Obed-Edom 
for  three  months.  At  the  end  of  that  time  David  re- 
moved it,  and  amid  great  rejoicing  placed  it  in  the  tab- 
ernacle which  he  had  built  on  Mount  Zion.  There  it 
remained  about  thirty  years,  until  the  third  year  of 
the  reign  of  Solomon,  who  removed  it  to  the  temple 
which  he  built.  Now,  the  use  which  we  make  of 
these  facts  is  this :  During  all  this  time  that  the  Ark 
of  the  Covenant  was  in  the  tabernacle  on  Mount  Zion, 
the  numerous  services,  sacrifices,  etc.,  prescribed  by 
the  Levitical  ritual  were  duly  performed  in  the  Mosaic 
tabernacle  at  Gibeon  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  while 
David  and  the  pious  Hebrews  of  his  day  offered  a 
simple  spiritual  worship  to  God  in  the  tabernacle  on 
Mount  Zion.     In  the  midst  of  that  tabernacle  the  Ark 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  I37 

was  placed.  (21  Sam.  vi.  17.)  It  was  not  veiled  or 
concealed  from  the  view  of  the  people,  as  it  had  been 
in  the  tabernacle  of  Moses,  and  afterward  was  in  the 
Holy  of  Holies  in  the  temple.  But,  with  its  golden 
cherubim,  and  the  glorious  shekinah  of  God,  it  was 
placed  in  the  sight  of  the  worshipers  who  had  imme- 
diate and  free  access  to  it.  There  a  gloriously  spiritual 
worship  was  offered.  ''And  he  appointed  certain  of 
the  Levites  to  minister  before  the  Ark  of  the  Lord, 
and  to  record,  and  to  thank,  and  praise  the  Lord  God 
ot  Israel."  (ist  Chron.  xvi.  4.)  Mark  this  worship. 
It  had  ministers  in  the  fullest  sense  of  that  term ;  and 
"to  record,"  i.  e.,  to  preach  and  teach;  "  to  thank 
and  praise  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,"  i.  <?.,  to  celebrate 
the  divine  goodness  in  song.  For  this  "  service  of 
song"  David  provided  a  large  choir  of  singers,  and 
the  splendid  Psalms  of  David,  so  rich  in  the  experi- 
ence of  divine  grace,  so  grand  in  their  melody,  and  so 
subduing  in  their  tenderness,  composed  the  hymnology 
employed.  Here  was  a  pure  spiritual  worship,  free 
from  "  bleeding  bird  and  bleeding  beast," — "  from 
hyssop  branch  and  sprinkling  priest."  The  attendants 
here  were  not  simply  the  royal  family,  but  "  the  great 
congregation  "  so  often  referred  to.  Holiness  of  life 
was  essential  to  communion  in  that  worship.  Con- 
cerning the  character  that  would  be  accepted  there, 
David  says :     '•  Who  shall  ascend  into  the  hill  of  the 


138  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Lord,  or  who  shall  stand  in  his  holy  place  ?  He  that  hath 
clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart;  who  hath  not  lifted  up  his 
soul  unto  vanity,  nor  sworn  deceittully."     Ps.  xxiv. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  this  tabernacle  and  its 
spiritual  worship  were  abandoned  when  Solomon  re- 
moved the  Ark  to  the  temple.  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
altogether  probable  that  it  still  remained  as  a  place  of 
devotion  to  the  deeply  pious,  and  that  it  was  imitated 
in  other  parts  of  the  land.  Here  probably  originated 
the  idea  of  the  synagogue  which  afterward  went  into 
such  extensive  use. 

But  the  sad  day  came  in  the  history  of  Israel  when 
wickedness  and  degeneracy  fell  upon  the  people. 
They  forsook  the  worship  of  God,  until,  like  in  the 
days  of  Elias,  only  a  remnant  remained  true,  and  these, 
perchance,  met  in  secret  and  "  waited  for  the  promise." 
Amid  this  degeneracy,  the  senseless  devotion  to  ordi- 
nances, God  raised  up  Amos  to  prophesy.  Standing 
in  the  place  where  so  many  prophecies  had  been  de- 
livered — near  the  gate  of  the  temple  on  Mount  Mo- 
riah — this  holy  man  first  arraigned,  exposed  and  con- 
demned the  sin^  of  the  people  in  forsaking  the  only 
acceptable  worship  of  God.  This  done,  he  turned 
his  eyes  to  Mount  Zion,  which  was  separated  from 
Mount  Moriah  by  a  narrow  valley,  and  there  beheld 
the  ruins  of  the  tabernacle  of  David.  Its  history  was 
well  known  to  Israel.     Pointing  with  one  hand  to  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  139 

place  where  a  pure  spiritual  worship  had  been  offered 
to  God  in  other  days,  and  with  the  other  hand  point- 
ing down  the  stream  of  time  to  the  coming  Messiah, 
and  the  glorious  restoration  to  be  effected  by  him,  he 
exclaimed  :  "  In  that  day  will  I  raise  up  the  taberna- 
cle of  David  that  is  fallen,  and  close  up  the  breaches 
thereof;  and  I  will  raise  up  his  ruins,  and  I  will  build 
it  as  in  the  days  of  old." 

(3)  Let  us  now  consider  the  application  of  this 
prophecy  to  the  Church,  showing  that  the  inspired 
Apostles  understood  it  to  mean  the  restoration  of  the 
Church  to  a  simple  and  pure  spiritual  worship.  If 
this  can  be  shown,  it  forever  destroys  the  claims  of  our 
opponents  for  the  setting  up,  de  novo,  of  a  new  Church. 
This  we  proceed  to  do.  The  Messiah  had  come  and 
completed  his  great  mission ;  he  had  ascended  up-  on 
high  and  sent  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  Apostles ;  the 
Gospel  had  been  preached,  and  thousands,  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  had  been  gathered  into  the  Church, 
when  a  serious  trouble  arose  concerning  the  ceremo- 
nial duties  of  the  Levitical  ritual.  Certain  mistaken 
teachers  had  gone  to  the  Gentile  convert  and  said : 
"  Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses, 
ye  can  not  be  saved."  (Acts  xv.  1-5.)  A  question 
of  vital  importance  thus  arose,  and  "  the  Apostles  and 
elders  came  together,"  in  the  first  Christian  Council, 
"  to  consider  this  matter."      Paul  and  Barnabas  went 


I40  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem  to  take  part  in  the  deliber- 
ations upon  this  important  question,  and,  together 
with  Peter,  declared  the  wonderful  results  of  the  Gos- 
pel among  the  Gentiles.  Let  us  assume  ourselves 
present  before  that  venerable  body  of  inspired  men, 
and  propound  to  them  the  three  questions  concerning 
the  Church  which  have  agitated  the  world  for  ages. 
The  first  is  the  question  of  the  Jew — the  representa- 
tive of  the  Ritualist — namely,  "  Do  not  the  Levitical 
ceremonies,  rites  and  ordinances  perpetuate  themselves 
in  the  Church  and  continue  obligatory  in  all  time  ?" 
The  second  is  the  question  of  the  opponent  of  infant 
baptism — namely,  "  Has  not  a  new  Church,  with  new 
principles,  a  new  Constitution,  &c.,  been  set  up  since 
the  resurrection  ?"  The  third  is  the  question  which 
the  advocates  of  infant  baptism  and  of  Church  unity 
maintain — namely,  "  Has  not  the  Church,  founded 
upon  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  ofifering  a  pure 
spiritual  worship  to  God,  continued  through  all  ages 
and  dispensations  ?" 

Now,  let  us  seek  the  answer  to  these  questions  at 
the  mouth  of  that  inspired  Council  The  Apostle 
James  gives  it :  "  Men  and  brethren,  hearken  unto 
me.  Simeon  hath  declared  how  God  at  the  first  did 
visit  the  Gentiles,  to  take  out  of  them  a  people  for  his 
name.  And  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  prophets 
[  Amos  ix.  II  ],  as  it  is  written  :  after  this   I   will  re- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  14I 

turn,  and  will  build  again  the  tabernacle  of  David 
which  is  fallen  down ;  and  I  will  build  again  the  ruins 
thereof,  and  I  will  set  it  up ;  that  the  residue  of  men 
might  seek  after  the  Lord,  and  all  the  Gentiles,  upon 
whom  my  name  is  called,  saith  the  Lord,  who  doeth 
all  things  well."  Acts  xv.  13-17.  This  shows  the 
Jew,  in  answer  to  his  question,  that  the  Mosaic  ritual 
formed  no  essential  part  of  the  Church  of  God  at  any 
time.  The  Church  existed  before  that  was  given ;  it 
existed  as  a  pure,  spiritual,  non-ritual  Church  on 
Mount  Zion  while  that  ritual,  with  all  that  appertained 
to  it,  was  observed  at  Gibeon ;  and  that  the  utter  ces- 
sation of  that  ritual  could  not  affect  it  in  any  wise  for 
evil.  Neither  the  coming  in  of  these  ordinances  nor 
their  departure  affected  the  Church.  The  period  of 
1400  years,  during  which  that  ritual  was  of  obligation, 
was  but  a  brief  parenthesis  in  the  Church.  The 
Church  on  Mount  Zion — the  tabernacle  of  David — 
holding  on  in  its  spiritual,  non-ritual  worship  in  the 
midst  of  an  infinite  ritualism,  was  a  sublime  expose  of 
the  character  and  Constitution  of  the  Church  of  God 
in  all  ages.  Thus  fell  forever  sacrifice,  a  human 
priesthood,  and  an  imposing  ceremonial;  and  the 
Church  resumes  her  simple  forms  of  preaching,  song, 
and  praise,  which  characterized  her  in  the  tabernacle 
of  David.  The  answer  to  the  opponent  of  infant  bap- 
tism, as  to  whether  "  a  new  Church,  with  new  princi- 


142  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

pies  and  a  new  Constitution,  was  to  be  set  up,"  is 
equally  explicit.  Instead  of  originating  a  new  Church 
and  a  new  worship,  this  inspired  Council  informs  him 
that  the  Church,  as  it  existed  on  Mount  Zion,  was  to 
be  simply  restored  and  its  ruins  built  up  as  in  the  days 
of  old ;  and  this  is  to  be  done  "  that  the  residue  of 
men  might  seek  after  the  Lord,  and  all  the  Gentiles, 
upon  whom  my  name  is  called,  saith  the  Lord."  Into 
its  ample  folds  the  Gentiles,  as  seen  in  other  prophe- 
cies quoted,  are  to  be  gathered.  This  answers  the 
third  question  affirmatively,  while  it  disproves  both  the 
former. 

Thus  it  is  shown  that  the  Church  of  God  continues 
one  and  the  same  through  all  economies.  Rites  may 
change,  ordinances  may  be  suspended,  introduced,  or 
cancelled ;  subordinate  covenants  may  come  in  and  be 
obligatory  for  centuries  and  then  expire  by  limitation ; 
but  the  Church,  planted  upon  the  immutable  cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  which  was  confirmed  in  Christ, 
•abides  unchanged  forever.  The  unalterable  Constitu- 
tion of  this  Church  makes  infants  eligible  to  her  mem- 
bership and  the  initiatory  rite  thereof  Where  do  our 
opponents  show  the  abrogation  of  this  law  ?    Nowhere ! 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  I43 


ARTICLE     X . 


THE  TEXTS  SUPPOSED  TO  MILITATE  AGAINST  THE 
UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  CONSIDERED  (CONTINUED). 
DAN.   II.  44;    MAT.  XVI.   18. 

We  shall  close  this  investigation  with  the  present 
number,  in  which  we  shall  briefly  examine  the  remain- 
ing texts  relied  on  by  the  opponents  of  Church  unity. 

Daniel  ii.  44. — "  And  in  the  days  of  these  kings 
shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom,  which  shall 
never  be  destroyed ;  and  the  kingdom  shall  not  be  left 
to  other  people,  but  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and  con- 
sume all  these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  forever." 

Here,  it  is  assumed  by  our  opponents,  that  the  set- 
ting up  a  kingdom  by  the  God  of  heaven  means  the 
founding  or  originating  the  Church  of  God  after  the 
crucifixion.  The  whole  position  is  false,  and  the  pro- 
cess of  argumentation  by  which  it  is  attempted  to  sus- 
tain it  is  at  war  with  the  teachings  of  Scripture  and 
history.  This  assertion  will  be  made  plain  by  a  brief 
examination  of  the  passage,  which  we  now  propose. 

Nebuchadnezzar  dreamed  that  a  great  image  stood 
before  him,  which  is  thus  described :  The  head  was 
of  fine  gold,  the  breast  and  arms  of  silver,  the  belly 
and  thighs  of  brass,  the  legs  of  iron,  the  feet  and  toes 


144  INFANT    BAPTISxM. 

part  of  potters'  clay  and  part  iron.  (Dan.  ii.  31-41.) 
Here  was  a  grand  chronological  image  of  monarchy, 
and  is  thus  explained  by  all.  The  "  head "  is  the 
Babylonian  kingdom ;  the  "  breast  and  arms  "  is  the 
Medo-Persian  ;  the  "belly  and  thighs"  is  the  Mace- 
donian under  Alexander  the  Great;  and  the  "  legs  and 
feet "  is  the  Roman  kingdom.  Now,  as  a  fact  of  his- 
tory, which  destroys  the  assumption  of  our  opponents 
on  this  text,  we  observe  : 

(i)  That  these  were  all  secular  kingdoms,  and  each 
one  in  its  turn  was  destroyed  by  a  secular  kingdom — 
not  by  the  Church  of  God.  Hence,  whatever  "  the 
kingdom"  which  the  God  of  heaven  was  to  "  set  up  in 
the  days  of  these  kings  "  may  mean,  one  thing  is  cer- 
tain, it  can  not  mean  the  Church.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  a  work  is  assigned  to  this  "kingdom"  of  the 
God  of  heaven  which  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the 
oft  proclaimed  character  of  the  Church.  It  is  here 
declared  that  this  "  kingdom  "  "  shall  break  in  pieces 
and  consume  all  these  kingdoms  " — a  work  which  is  ut- 
terly at  war  with  what  Christ  said  of  his  kingdom — 
namely:  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world;  if  my 
kmgdom  were  of  this  world,  then  would  my  servants 
fight."  (John  xviii.  36.)  It  would  not  be  compatible 
with  the  character  of  such  a  kingdom  to  "  break  in 
pieces  and  consume  "  the  governments  of  this  world 
To   attempt   it    would    forfeit    the    character   of    the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  1 45 

Church.  But,  in  the  second  place,  it  is  an  undeniable 
fact  of  history  that  each  of  the  kingdoms  symbolized 
in  this  image  was  overthrown  and  destroyed  by  secu- 
lar kingdoms.  Thus,  the  Babylonian  kingdom,  the 
head  of  the  image,  was  destroyed  by  Cyrus  about  560 
years  before  Christ;  the  Medo-Persian  kingdom,  the 
"  breast  and  arms  "  of  the  image,  was  destroyed  by 
Alexander  at  the  battle  of  Arbela,  B.  C.  331 ;  the 
Macedonian  kingdom,  "  the  belly  and  thighs"  of  the 
image,  was  overthrown  by  the  death  of  Alexander  and 
the  divisions  and  wars  which  ensued  between  his  gen- 
erals; and  the  Roman  kingdom,  the  "  legs  and  feet" 
of  the  image,  was  destroyed  by  the  Northern  hordes, 
who  finished  their  work  of  ruin  under  the  walls  of 
Constantinople  on  the  29th  May,  1453,  at  which  time 
the  last  vestige  of  that  empire  was  swept  away.  In 
point  of  fact,  the  "  Church,"  which  our  opponents  be- 
lieve to  be  meant  by  the  "kingdom"  in  this  prophecy, 
never  had  any  part  in  the  overthrow  of  any  of  these 
kingdoms.  This  is  sufficient  to  refute  their  claim,  that 
the  setting  up  of  the  Church  is  meant  in  this  prophecy. 
(2)  The  time  for  the  setting  up  of  this  "  kingdom  " 
is  too  late  to  answer  the  purpose  of  the  theory  we  op- 
pose. It  is  generally  conceded  by  the  interpreters  of 
this  prophecy,  that  "  the  feet  and  toes,  part  of  potters' 
clay  and  part  of  iron,"  (vr.  41)  in  this  chronological 
image,  symbolizes  the  politico-ecclesiastical  papal 
10 


146  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

power.     There  are  many  things  to  justify  this  conclu- 
sion.    As  {a)  there  is  perfect  chronological  order  ob- 
served in  this  image — the  "  head,"  "  breast,"  "thighs," 
"  legs,"   and    "  feet,"   symbolizing   successive  periods 
from  560  B.  C.  to   1053  A.  D.,  the   "feet  and  toes," 
therefore,  symbolize  the  last  period  in  the  Roman  em- 
pire.    And  (^)  the  weakness  in  this  empire,  indicated 
by  the  "  clay  and  iron  "  mixed  rogether,  was  not  rea- 
lized until  after  the  union  of  Church  and  State,  conse- 
quent upon  the  conversion   of  Constantine  in  313  A. 
D.     Interpreters  generally  agree  that  the  "  clay  and 
iron  "   period  in   the  image  symbolized  the  union  of 
Church  and  State  in  the  Roman  empire.     But  this 
did  not  take  place,  as  above  seen,  until  in  the  fourth 
century.     Hence    this   image    of  monarchy  was  not 
prepared  for  destruction  until  this  period  in  its  devel- 
opment was  reached. 

Lastly,  {c)  The  "  stone  "  was  not  "  cut  out  of  the 
mountain,"  nor  was  "  the  kingdom  set  up,"  until  the 
chronological  image  was  completed.  This  is  manifest 
from  the  statement  in  verse  34.  Daniel  said  to  the 
King :  "  Thou  sawest  till  that  a  stone  was  cut  out 
without  hands,  which  smote  the  image  upon  his  feet 
that  were  of  iron  and  clay,  and  brake  them  to  pieces." 
Mark  the  expression — "  thou  sawest  till  that,"  /.  e.y 
"  thou  continuedst  to  look  along  down  the  stream  of 
time  until,  the  image  being  completed,  thou  sawest  a 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


147 


Stone  cut  out  without  hands."  Now,  the  kingdom 
was  not  set  up  until  the  image  was  completed  and  the 
"  stone  cut  out."  But  this  brings  us  to  the  fourth  cen- 
tury of  the  Christian  era,  and  consequently  too  late 
for  the  purposes  of  the  theory  we  oppose. 

(3)  The  word  employed  by  Daniel,  rendered  "  set 
up,"  does  not  signify  to  oiiginate.  Our  opponents 
assume  it  does.  Let  us  now  to  the  proof  This  part 
of  Daniel's  prophecy  is  written  in  the  Chaldee  lan- 
guage, and  the  word  used  by  him  is  y'  kim,  which 
Furst  defines  "  to  raise  out  of  misfortune ;  commonly 
to  confirm,  to  establish ;  to  rebuild ;  to  make,  revive, 
to  awaken  to  life;  to  reanimate;  to  give  a  firm  posi- 
tion to ;  to  restore,  to  erect  again ;  to  be  established ; 
to  endure,  to  remain,"  (S:c.  When  Daniel's  book  was 
translated  into  Greek,  the  word  avaarrjcet  [anastesei) 
was  employed  to  translate  the  Chaldee  word.  Lid- 
dell  and  Scott  thus  define  it :  "  To  make  to  stand  up, 
wake  up,  restore,  rouse  to  action,  to  build  up  again." 
Here,  as  we  have  seen  in  other  instances,  a  restora- 
tion simply  is  contemplated,  not  a  creation.  If  it  re- 
fers to  the  Church  at  all,  it  contemplates  simply  a 
reformation  from  abuses.  Whether  it  does  so  refer  or 
not,  the  period  at  which  the  event  seen  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar is  centuries  too  late  for  the  cause  of  our  oppo- 
nents. This  "  kingdom  "  was  "  set  up  "  in  the  days  of 
the  weakness  of  the  Roman  empire  when  its  "  iron  " 


148  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

power  had  been  weakened  by  ecclesiastical  union  and 
broils.  But  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion,  the  period 
when  our  opponents  assume  the  Church  was  origi- 
nated, the  Roman  empire  was  at  the  zenith  of  its 
strength  and  glory.  The  splendor  of  the  Augustan 
age  then  rested  upon  her  invincible  arms  and  trium- 
phant laws.  This  text,  therefore,  gives  them  no  sup- 
port whatever. 

There  is  one  other — namely.  Matt.  xvi.  18:  "And 
I  say  also  unto  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it."  After  what  has  been 
shown  concerning  similar  passages  we  need  not  dwell 
on  this.  The  theory  which  we  oppose  assumes  that 
by  the  words  "  I  will  build  my  Church,"  Christ  meant 
to  say  he  would  originate  a  church,  or  would  bring 
into  existence  that  which  had  no  previous  existence. 
There  never  was  an  assumption  more  utterly  ground- 
less. Out  of  such  assumption  concerning  these  words 
many  of  the  grossest  errors  and  most  blasphemous 
pretensions  of  the  Church  of  Rome  have  arisen.  Our 
opponents  have  not  fallen  far  behind  Rome  in  the 
abuse  of  this  text.  An  examination  ot  it  will  show 
that  it  furnishes  them  no  support.  The  word  rendered 
"  build  "  in  this  verse  is  oLKodoin'jou)  {pikodomeso)^  and 
is  defined  by  the  lexicons  thus  :  Liddell  and  Scott, 
*'  to   edify,"  N.  T.    Groves,   "  to   edify,  instruct,  im- 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


:49 


prove,  profit,   to   embolden,   encourage."     R.obinson 
**  to  rebuild,  to  renew,  to  build  up,  to  establish,  to  con 
firm,  spoken  of  the  Christian  Church  and  its  members, 
who  are  tlius  compared  to  a  building,  a  temple  of  God 
erected  upon  the   one  only  foundation  Jesus  Christ, 
and  ever  built  up  progressively  and  unceasingly  more 
and  more  from  the  foundation."      This  is  the  prevail- 
ing sense  in  which  the  word  is  used.     We  give  a  few 
examples.     Jer.  xxx.    i8 :    "And    the    city    shall    be 
builded  {oikodoDieo)  upon  her  own  heap."     Here  was 
restoration,  not  origin.     Matt.  xxvi.  6i  :    "  I  am  able 
to  destroy  the  templeof  God,  and  to  build  it  {oikodomeo) 
in  three  days."     Acts  ix.  31 :  "  Then  had  the  Churches 

rest and    were    edified  " — [oikodomeo). 

The  word  used  by  the  Savior,  it  is  thus  seen,  means 
to  rebuild,  restore,  establish.  If  we  now  consider  the 
circumstances  under  which  this  language  'was  used, 
this  meaning  01  the  word  must  be  apparent.  There 
had  been  a  great  apostasy  on  the  part  of  the  rulers 
and  many  of  the  people.  Degeneracy  and  corrup- 
tion lifted  their  heads  every  where.  In  the  midst  of 
this  terrible  state  of  affairs  the  Messiah  appeared  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  But  the  apostates 
rejected  him  and  sought  his  life.  Every  where  he  met 
with  a  powerful,  organized  resistance.  Looked  at 
from'  a  merely  human  stand-point,  his  fortunes  seemed 
hopeless.     "  Many    ot  his   disciples  went  back,  and 


150  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

walked  no  more  with  him,"  (John  vi.  66.)  But  in 
this  day  of  gloom  Peter  stood  up  and  said,  "  Thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  Jesus  re- 
plied, ''  Upon  this  rock  [/.  ^.,  upon  the  truth  here  con- 
fessed] I  will  build  [restore,  reanimate,  establish]  my 
Church."  Hopeless  as  seemed  the  enterprise,  when 
considered  from  a  human  stand-point,  yet  the  truth 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  "  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God,"  shall  be  the  rallying  point  of  the  Church, 
and  irom  it  she  shall  derive  strength  which  "  the  gates 
of  hell "  can  not  resist.  This  is  the  import  of  this 
text.  It  contains  no  intimation  of  a  new  organization. 
It  simply  announces  the  restoration  to  power  and 
glory  of  the  already  existing  Church  of  God,  effected 
by  the  great  truth  which  Peter  had  confessed. 

Thus  we  have  examined  the  only  texts  upon  which 
our  opponents  rely  to  disprove  the  unity  and  same- 
ness of  the  Church,  and  have  seen  that,  instead  of  re- 
futing this  position,  they  all  declare  a  restoration,  a 
renewal,  of  the  Church  of  God  to  power  and  glory  at 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  Xo  "  new  Church  "  was 
erected.  This  is  but  a  waking  dream  of  those  who 
despise  the  Bible  truth  of  infant  baptism.  It  thus  ap- 
pears that  tlie  Church  founded  upon  the  covenant 
with  Abraham,  and  which  for  nineteen  hundred  years, 
in  administering  the  law  of  that  covenant,  received  in- 
fants to  membership  and  gave  them  the  token  thereof, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  I5I 

is  the  Church  of  God  to-day,  with  no  change  in  her 
great  constitutional  law  or  in  her  subjects.  This  be- 
ing true,  infant  baptism  follows  inevitably  as  the  law 
of  God's  Church  now. 

We  shall  close  this  investigation  by  showing  that  a 
contrary  supposition,  i.  e.,  that  infant  baptism  and  in- 
fant church-membership  is  not  the  law  of  God's 
Church,  is  a  modern  invention,  the  child  of  fanaticism, 
born  of  the  wildest  heresy  of  modern  times  and  nursed 
upon  the  bosom  of  hate  toward  everything  pure  and 
good  m  the  Church  of  God.  Where  does  the  first  or- 
ganized resistance  to  infant  baptism  appear  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  past?  We  answer,  in  Germany,  among 
the  fanatical  Anabaptists,  about  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  We  fix  this  as  the  first  organized 
resistance  to  infant  baptism.  For  while  it  is  true  that 
some  spasmodic  instances  of  resistance  to  this  apostolic 
custom  of  the  Church  do  appear  a  little  before  this,  it 
is  also  true  that  those  instances  fell  without  an  echo. 
The  Petrobrussians  had  opposed  it  in  A.  D.  1150,  but 
not  upon  the  ground  which  the  present  opponents  of 
It  assign  for  their  opposition.  .  They  (the  Petrobrus- 
sians) opposed  it  upon  the  ground  that  infants,  bap- 
tized or  unbaptized,  are  not  fit  for  the  kingdom  of 
God.  Wall  says  of  them  :  "The  first  body  of  men 
we  read  of  that  did  deny  baptism  to  infants,  which 
were  the  Petrobrussians,  Anno  Domini   11 50,  did  it 


152  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

upon  a  ground  or  reason  which  they  held  common 
with  these  men,  viz.:  that  infants,  baptized  or  unbap- 
tized,  are  incapable  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."     (I. 

318.) 

Concerning  the  author  ot  this  sect,  Peter  de  Bruys, 
Mosheim  thus  speaks  :  "  The  whole  system  of  doc- 
trines which  this  unhappy  martyr,  whose  zeal  was  not 
without  a  considerable  mixture  of  fanaticism,  taught 
to  the  Petrobrussians,  his  disciples,  is  not  known." 
(Ch.  Hist.  Pt.  II,  p.  289.)  Like  those  who  followed 
him  in  his  opposition  to  infant  baptism,  he  was  a  fan- 
atic, as  faithful  history  deposes.  Among  other  evi- 
dences of  this  the  following  is  conclusive  :  "  He  main- 
tained that  it  is  superstitious  to  build  churches,  and 
that  those  erected  ought  to  be  demolished."  (Wat- 
son's Bib.  Die.)  With  Peter  de  Bruys  this  opposition 
was  a  part  of  an  extensive  fanaticism.  But  his  oppo- 
sition fell  without  an  echo,  and  the  silence  on  this 
question  of  opposition  which  had  rested  upon  the 
Church  from  the  Apostolic  age  was  resumed  and 
reigned  supreme  for  three  hundred  and  fifty  years 
longer.  This  brings  us  to  the  origin  of  this  opposi- 
tion which,  under  one  form  and  another,  has  contin- 
ued to  the  present  time.  The  great  Reformation 
under  Luther  began  about  the  opening  of  the  six- 
teenth century.  Grand  and  glorious  as  was  that  work, 
yet  it  was  the  occasion   (innocent)   of  many  excesses 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  I53 

in  doctrine  and  practice.  Once  the  human  mind  is 
loosened  from  the  moorings  of  centuries,  it  is  to  be 
expected  that  ignorcnt  and  fanatical  men  will  plunge 
into  the  wildest  extremes.  So  it  was  in  this  Reforma- 
tion. While  Luther  and  his  co-laborers  held  grandly 
on  in  their  work  of  redeeming  the  Church  from  papal 
abuses,  many  ignorant  men  plunged  into  excesses 
which  threatened  to  thwart  the  labors  of  the  great 
Reformer.  Prominent  among  these  were  Louis  Het- 
zer,  Balthazar  Hubmeyer,  Felix  Mentz,  Conrad  Gre- 
bel,  Melchior  Hoffman,  and  George  Jacob.  These 
men  were  the  fathers  of  the  Anabaptist  sect,  in  which 
the  present  opposition  to  infant  baptism  originated. 
There  is  but  one  voice  in  history  concerning  that  sect, 
and  that  is,  they  were  a  lawless,  licentious,  turbulent 
body  ot  fanatics,  whose  lives  were  filled  up  w  ith  the 
most  revolting  enormities  and  flagitious  villainies. 
Mosheim  says  of  them  :  "  It  is  difficult  to  determine, 
with  certainty,  the  particular  spot  that  gave  birth  to 
that  seditious  and  pestilential  sect  of  Anabaptists, 
whose  tumultuous  and  desperate  attempts  were  equally 
pernicious  to  the  cause  of  religion  and  the  civil  inter- 
ests of  mankind.  .  .  .  The  most  pernicious  fac- 
tion of  all  those  that  composed  this  modey  muldtude 
was  the  sect  which  pretended  that  the  founders  of  the 
new  and  perfect  Church,  already  mentioned,  were 
under  the   direction   of  a   divine  impulse,  and  were 


154  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

armed  against  all  opposition  by  the  power  of  working 
miracles.  It  was  this  detestable  faction  that,  m  1521, 
began  their  fanatical  work,  under  the  guidance  of 
Munzer,  Stubner,  Stork,  and  other  leaders  of  the  same 
furious  complexion  in  Saxony  and  adjacent  countries. 
They  employed  at  first  the  various  arts  of  persuasion, 
in  order  to  propagate  their  doctrine.  They  preached, 
exhorted,  admonished,  and  reasoned,  in  a  manner  that 
seemed  proper  to  gain  the  multitude,  and  related  a 
great  number  of  visions  and  revelations,  with  which 
they  pretended  to  have  been  favored  from  above. 
But  when  they  saw  that  these  methods  of  making 
proselytes  were  not  attended  with  such  rapid  success 
as  they  fondly  expected,  and  that  the  ministry  of  Lu- 
ther and  other  eminent  reformers  proved  detrimental 
to  their  cause,  they  had  recourse  to  more  expeditious 
measures,  and  madly  attempted  to  propagate  their 
fanatical  doctrine  by  force  of  arms.  Munzer  and  his 
associates  assembled  in  1525  a  numerous  army,  chiefly 
composed  of  the  peasants  of  Suabia,  Thuringia,  Fran- 
conia,  and  Saxony,  and,  at  the  head  of  this  credulous 
and  deluded  rabble,  declared  war  against  all  laws, 
governments,  and  magistrates  of  every  kind,  under 
the  chimerical  pretext  that  Christ  was  now  to  take  the 
reins  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  government  into  his 
own  hands,  and  to  rule  alone  over  the  nations. 
Those  who  distinguished  themselves  by  the  enormity 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


'55 


of  their  conduct  in  this  infamous  sect,  were  Louis 
Hetzer,  Balthazar  Hubmeyer,  Feliz  Mentz,  Conrad 
Grebel,  Melchior  Hoffman,  and  George  Jacob,  who, 
if  their  power  had  seconded  their  designs,  would  have 
involved  all  Switzerland,  Holland,  and  Germany  in 
tumult  and  bloodshed.  A  great  part  of  this  rabble 
seemed  really  delirious-;  and  nothing  more  extrava- 
gant and  incredible  can  be  imagined  than  the  dreams 
and  visions  that  were  constantly  arising  in  their  dis- 
ordered brains."  (Mosh.  Church  Hist.  Pt.  H.  p.  492, 
493.)  This  was  the  origin  of  the  Baptist  Church  and 
of  organized  opposition  to  infant  baptism.  The  pages 
of  history  show  no  instance  before  this  of  a  body  that 
opposed  it,  except  the  spasmodic  and  ephemeral  op- 
position of  the  Petrobrussians  in  the  twelfth  century. 
The  facts,  therefore,  furnished  by  the  history  of  the 
past  with  reference  to  infant  baptism,  are,  that  during 
the  first  twelve  hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era  no 
body  styling  itself  a  Church  ever  lifted  a  voice  against 
it.  A  few  followers  of  a  fanatic  in  Provence  and  Lan- 
guedoc,  Peter  de  Bruys,  did,  about  the  opening  of  the 
twelfth  century,  oppose  it,  as  they  opposed  many 
other  things  most  sacred  and  essential  to  the  Church. 
But  this  body  sunk  into  oblivion  with  its  ill-fated 
leader,  and  for  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  there- 
after no  one  echoed  the  opposition  of  this  sect.  Then, 
in  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  arose  the  ec- 


156  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

clesiastico -political  sect  of  Anabaptists,  from  whom 
the  present  Baptist  Church  has  descended,  whose  tur- 
bulence and  crimes  ultimately  brought  the  arm  of  civil 
authority  upon  them,  to  save  the  country  from  blood- 
shed and  ruin,  and  by  them  the  present  opposition  to 
infant  baptism  was  originated !  Let  our  opponents 
disprove  this  if  they  can. 

We  have  now  passed  over  the  field  of  investigation 
which  we  marked  out  in  the  beginning.  The  argu- 
ment is  before  the  reader.  It  might  have  been  elabo- 
rated more,  but  we  doubt  whether  this  would  have 
added  to  the  clear  and  comprehensive  view  which  we 
wished  the  reader  to  have.  Let  him  now  w^eigh  the 
facts  presented  from  Scripture  and  history,  and  then 
ask  himself  on  which  side  of  the  question  is  the  truth. 
After  some  little  experience  in  the  investigation  of  the 
customs  and  practices  of  the  Church  of  God,  we  hesi- 
tate not  to  say,  that  there  are  many  matters  of  doc- 
trine and  practice  held  to  be  true  and  sacred  by  all 
denominations  which,  if  assailed,  could  not  array  in 
their  behalf  as  much  testimony  as  we  have  here  ad- 
duced lor  infant  baptism,  to  save  the  world. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  address  one  word  to  those 
whose  Church  furnishes  the  privilege  of  dedicating 
their  children  to  God  as  the  Bible  has  authorized. 
In  many  places  the  failure  of  the  pulpit  to  instruct  the 
congregation  upon  this  duty,  and  in  other  places  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  1 57 

Storm  of  relentless  persecution  against  this  duty,  has 
caused  it  to  be  greatly  and  shamefully  neglected.  Let 
me  exhort  those  who  have  this  privilege  allowed  them 
to  bring  their  "  little  children  "  to  Christ  "  and  forbid 
them  not."  Lay  them  confidingly  in  the  arms  of 
Jesus ;  carefully  place  them  in  the  fold  of  the  great 
Shepherd.  Let  bigots  rave  and  fanatics  hiss.  Thus 
they  raved  and  hissed  at  the  man  who,  on  his  way  to 
the  block  and  the  ax,  said,  "  I  am  ready  to  be  offered 
up."  Thus  they  have  raved  and  hissed  at  the  men 
and  women  in  all  the  past  who  preferred  the  ax,  the 
stake,  and  the  gibbet  to  a  compromise  with  infidelity. 
As  well  might  these  holy  men  and  women  have  quailed 
before  the  storm  and  abandoned  duty,  as  for  you,  be- 
cause of  opposition.  Do  your  duty.  And  as  you 
hope  to  press  these  dear  little  ones  back  to  your  heart, 
warm  with  eternal  life,  when  the  night  of  the  grave 
yields  to  the  morning  of  heaven,  so  now  consecrate 
them  to  God  in  holy  baptism,  and  then  train  them  up 
'*in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 


